Have you wondered if Jewish Halachic law differs from secular law and what impact that would have on how Jews conduct business? Congregation Ahavas Achim in Highland Park partnered with the Beth Din of America for a special learning program that featured real dayanim actively serving in the field. Nearly 50 people attended the thought-provoking exploration of contemporary Halachic issues on Sunday morning, May 18.

“It is fascinating and instructive to see the intersection between Halacha and secular law. The Beth Din of America does a fantastic job servicing the Jewish legal needs of our community, and it was so important to get a window into the way they operate with such expertise and clarity. This program demonstrated the absolute necessity of a beit din and expert dayanim within the context of a committed Jewish community,” said Rabbi Steven Miodownik, rabbi of Ahavas Achim.

In his introduction, Ahavas Achim’s Assistant Rabbi Noah Whittenburg acknowledged that the workings of the beth din are not as well known as those at other institutions because their work is confidential. The presentation would enlighten the lawyers (and non-lawyers) in the audience regarding how laws in Halacha can be used in day-to-day life.

Rabbi Shlomo Weissmann spoke about the enforceability of contracts in beth din and began with an overview of how and why contracts are used in the business world, how their usage is similar (and different) under Jewish law, and how to navigate the enforceable and unenforceable clauses that create issues when secular and Jewish law don’t coincide.

Contracts are common in the secular world concerning goods or other items that do not exist at the time of the contract: the next season’s harvest, goods to be produced at a certain price before a date in the future, the offspring of farm animals that are not born. According to the Rambam, contracts cannot be enforced concerning a product that doesn’t yet exist.

The example was given of a contemporary case that went before a beth din where a house was to be sold for more than $1 million using a standard contract that is used routinely for real estate transactions. The buyer was to put $75,000 in escrow to be forfeited to the seller if the purchase did not happen. Under advisement, the buyer withdrew the money from the escrow account and did not replace it. The sale did not take place and the seller suffered financially.

Secular law would find the contract enforceable. Would Jewish law consider this a case of asmachta (a commitment a person makes but has no intention of keeping, as when not being able to foresee the future when entering an agreement)? Although the seller lost out on another business deal (secular concept of liquidated damages), Jewish law only allows for reimbursement of direct and specific damages and the contract would appear unenforceable.

Using a variety of Jewish legal sources and explanations, the contract was determined to be enforceable. Major reasons being given included that civil law of a country is binding upon Jewish inhabitants as long as it does not specifically contradict Jewish law (Dina d’malchutata dina). Jewish law acknowledges that something commonly done is respected and the contract used was one that is prevalent in the field. The seller was awarded the escrow money.

Rabbi Dani Rapp presented a timely presentation on taxation and tariffs in Halacha. Tariffs are currently headline news, but they have been the subject of discussion in Jewish law for quite some time. He noted that a solution was needed about 15 years ago to combat an overabundance of Asian carp in the Mississippi River that adversely impacted the region’s ecosystem. A company caught the fish and introduced it for sale worldwide. Although ugly and dismissed by the majority of the world, the fish was particularly inexpensive and was purchased by Haiti (as a cheap form of protein) and Israel (for gefilte fish products). Israeli fishermen in the Kinneret region protested the purchase of the cheap fish in the Knesset and claimed the imported fish would destroy their livelihood. The Knesset responded with issuance of tariffs for imported Asian carp to protect local fishermen. The United States placed a tariff on Israeli technology in response. What is the Halachic approach to taxation? Are tariffs allowed to be used to protect one group at the expense of another?

According to the Torah, a king has the right to enact taxes to pay for government services as part of the social contract to effectively run the country. Government, the modern equivalent of a king, can enact property, sales and other taxes. Tariffs were used as early forms of sales taxes, with income taxes only being implemented in the United States in 1914. Numerous sources and examples were brought to determine if tariffs are legal under Halacha. The distinction was made between using the tariff as a tax (which would be legal) or as income redistribution (which is not). It would seem the tariff on only Asian carp would not be acceptable as it only benefitted the fishermen at the expense of the tech sector. Increased tariffs on Chinese products may impact the American consumer in the short term, but it may be acceptable in Halacha if the ultimate result is the creation of well-paying jobs and the substitution of local products. More discussion covered the right of a government to think of long-term, rather than short-term, business results and the definition of an emergency power for the executive branch.

“As a lawyer, I was interested in these topics. I presented at a beth din proceeding a few months ago and appreciated hearing about the process of how decisions are made,” said Warren Fink, of Highland Park. Seth Berman, an in-house corporate attorney, was interested “in seeing the intersection of Jewish and secular law.”

Rabbi Whittenburg added, “We were very excited to get the opportunity to partner with the Beth Din of America for this enriching program that helps deepen people’s knowledge in very practical areas and also raises awareness of how the Beth Din functions.”