LFA 3151/14

Applicant:                   A

                                    v.

Respondent:                B

Attorneys for the Applicant:   Doris Golsha-Netzer, Adv.; Roy Ashkari, Adv.

Attorney for the Respondent:             Maxim Lipkin, Adv.

The Supreme Court

Before: Deputy President E. Rubinstein, Justice Z. Zylbertal, Justice D. Barak-Erez

Application for Leave to Appeal the judgment of the Tel-Aviv District Court of March 23, 2014 in FA 21043-02-1311 (Deputy President I. Schneller, and Judges K. Vardi and R. Levhar-Sharon)

Abstract

In a majority opinion (E. Rubinstein D.P. and Z. Zylbertal J.), the Supreme Court held that the family courts may limit the period of payment of spousal support to a woman due to her refusal to accept a get [Jewish religious divorce], even in the absence of a divorce order by the Rabbinical Court. As an operative outcome, the appeal was granted, as it was held by majority (D. Barak-Erez and Z. Zylbertal J.,) that, under the circumstances, the court should not have set a time limit for the payment of the Applicant’s support.

*Family – Spousal Support – Recalcitrant Spouse

*Family – Spousal Support – Right to Spousal Support

*Family – Spousal Support – An Unemployed Woman

*Family – Spousal Support – Rehabilitative Support

An application for leave to appeal a judgment by the District Court concerning the fixing of a time limit for spousal support awarded the Applicant despite the fact that the Rabbinical Court did not rule that she is a ”recalcitrant wife”. The application was heard as an appeal.

Background: The parties were married to each other for over 35 years. The Applicant was rarely employed outside the home during the marriage, and the Respondent was the sole supporter. The parties have been separated since 2011, and have conducted various legal proceedings related to the separation – divorce proceedings, proceedings concerning the woman’s right to support, and proceedings concerning the division of the family assets. Both the Family Court and the District Court believed the Applicant should be awarded support for a fixed period of time. In the course of the proceedings, the Court addressed the question of whether the Family Court could revoke a woman’s support due to her “get recalcitrance” in the absence of a decision by the Rabbinical Court ordering her to accept a get, and in the absence of a positive finding that the couple’s marriage had come to an end. What are the considerations that the Family Court must take into account when it is requested to fix a time period for support, or revoke the support of a married woman who it believes is refusing to agree to a divorce for financial reasons?

The Supreme Court (per D. Barak-Erez J., Z. Zylbertal concurring with the operative outcome, over the dissenting opinion of E. Rubinstein D.P.) granted the appeal:

In Justice Barak-Erez’s view, the principle of comity between courts required the civil court’s restraint and thus, in her opinion, as long as the couple’s divorce proceeding is pending in the Rabbinical Court, the civil court may not base its ruling on spousal support upon “get recalcitrance” in the absence of an appropriate finding by the Rabbinical Court on this issue. Justice Barak-Erez added that this conclusion stems not only from the principle of comity between courts, but also from the Jewish religious law that applies to this case, which dictates that revoking the right to spousal support in a case of a divorce obligation must be accompanied (based on many opinions) with supplemental steps that are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rabbinical Court, and which require the active involvement of the Rabbinical Court (entrusting a get [Jewish bill of divorce] and the financial obligation required under the ketubah [Jewish marriage contract] to a third party).

In her opinion, the  means at the disposal of the civil court for addressing the phenomenon of “get recalcitrance” deriving from financial motivations, is through awarding “rehabilitative” support under the general principles of the civil law (on the basis of the principles of reliance and good faith.) Of course, since these are “civil” principles, they would also apply, mutatis mutandis, to a divorcing man under these very same conditions. In her opinion, it is possible to award rehabilitative support under civil law only where the partner is no longer entitled to support under the personal status law, and this at two points in time: “when before the divorce is granted, there is cause for revoking support; or after the granting of the divorce has extinguished the right to support.” The central factor that must be considered in order to determine wither one of the partners is entitled to rehabilitative support, and its amount, is the prospect for alternative sources of income. Therefore, the questions of the home-based partner’s vocational or professional training and work experience, age (including how close they are to the age of retirement), the value of the couple’s property  and whether it has already been divided, are of importance.  On the other hand, considerations of fault as to the responsibility for the separation are not relevant.

As applied to the matter before the Court, Justice Barak-Erez was of the view that the appeal must be granted, and that as long as there is no change in the couple’s circumstances, including the circumstances surrounding the proceedings in the Rabbinical Court, the Respondent must continue to pay the Applicant support as decided by the Family Court, without setting a termination date.

As opposed to this, the Deputy President, joined by Justice Zylbertal, disputed Justice Barak-Erez’s position regarding jurisdiction. In their view, under the principle of good faith, the civil courts may revoke a married woman’s spousal support when they are persuaded that the marriage has effectively ended and that the woman refuses to accept her get solely for financial reasons, even in the absence of a finding by the Rabbinical Court that the woman is required to accept the get. The Deputy President explained that often the civil court is called upon to make incidental findings that are required for the determination of the issue of spousal support and property matters that are in its primary jurisdiction (section 76 of the Courts Law.) According to the Deputy President, a civil court’s finding whereby a woman loses her spousal support for being a “recalcitrant spouse” does not lead to the end of the marriage in the Jewish halakhic sense, and does not conflict with the principle of comity between courts. The Deputy President added that he did not rule out the method proposed by Justice Barak-Erez as to the awarding of rehabilitative support in appropriate cases, however in his view, it is a tool in the Family Court’s “toolbox”, which is to be used according to the circumstances of the case in order to resolve the issue of alternative sources of income (while noting other tools, such as an unequal division of resources.)

According to the Deputy President, under the specific circumstances of the case at hand, and once the lower courts, including the Rabbinical Court, were persuaded that the marriage had come to an end, and that the Applicant is delaying the divorce only to improve her financial circumstances, the Family Court, and subsequently, the District Court, correctly fixed the period of support payments, and the District Court’s approach which met the Applicant more than halfway, is acceptable. Therefore, in his view, the appeal must be denied. At the end of the period set (December 2014), the possibility to extend the period of support payments would be revisited.

Justice Zylbertal, who, as noted, concurred with the view of the Deputy President on the matter of jurisdiction, concurred with the view of Justice Barak-Erez as to the operative result, whereby the appeal must be granted.

In Justice Zylbertal’s opinion, the considerations the court must take into account before revoking a woman’s support due to “get recalcitrance” are, inter alia: what is the reason for the refusal – personal vindictiveness or extortion, or a lack of sufficient financial protection for the financially weaker partner upon divorce, and the woman’s ability to continue to support herself after the divorce. In this context, the court must examine the woman’s ability to secure an income, and to this end, it should also consider her age, her share in the husband’s pension, and when she will be entitled to receive her share of those funds.

According to Justice Zylbertal, in the circumstances of this case, it is inappropriate to fix a timeframe for the Applicant’s support, both because her delaying of the divorce is not necessarily the result of vindictiveness or extortion, that is – not a lack of good faith that warrants fixing the period of support – and in light of the understandings that characterized the couple’s marriage, the Applicant’s age (over 50), and her prospects of integrating into the workforce during the short adjustment period left until the partners reach the age of retirement.

It should be noted that, in addition to the above, the members of the panel briefly discussed an issue related to the matter at hand – the possibility of awarding financial compensation in cases of get recalcitrance in the framework of a tort suit.

Judgment

15th Iyar 5775 (May 4, 2015)

Justice D. Barak-Erez

1.A married couple are  separated and conducting various, related legal proceedings – divorce proceedings, proceedings regarding the women’s right to spousal support, and proceedings regarding the division of the family property. Under the circumstances, was the Family Court correct in granting the woman spousal support for a fixed period of time, after which the woman would no longer be entitled to support, even if the couple do not divorce? This is the central issue at bar. Its determination raises additional questions, among them: can the Family Court rule that, for the purpose of deciding spousal support, a woman may be deemed a recalcitrant spouse even if the Rabbinical Court refrained from making such a finding in the course of the divorce proceedings between the parties? To what extent may the Family Court consider the fact that the woman lacks the capacity to earn an income, and may it refrain from awarding her spousal support even if she is entitled to such support under the personal-status law, because the couple are about to divorce, or because the Court is under the impression that the woman is a recalcitrant spouse?

The Factual Background and the Proceedings thus far

2.The Applicant and the Respondent (hereinafter: “the couple” or “the partners”) married in 1976. They are parents to three children, and grandparents to eight common grandchildren. Throughout their marriage, the Respondent worked for a large public corporation, while the Applicant ran their household. The Applicant worked outside of the home for only short periods of time. The couple own a house (hereinafter: the house) to which an additional residential unit is attached, and which is still under mortgage (though its amount is currently insignificant compared to the value of the house.)

3.In 2011, a dispute erupted between the partners. About a year and a half before the conflict started, the couple moved into a rental apartment in Holon, and rented out the house they owned, as well as the attached residential unit (which was rented when they resided in the house as well.) In July 2011, as a result of their dispute,  the Respondent left the apartment in Holon where the two resided.

4.On August 15, 2011, the Applicant filed suit in the Family Court for support for herself and for the couple’s youngest son, who was a minor at the time (FC 24331-08-11). As we will explain below, this was the suit that led to the application at bar.

5.Pursuant to that, several additional suits were filed between the parties. On the same day, the Applicant filed a suit for orders to preserve property rights and for accounts (FC 24358-08-11). On November 16, 2011, the Respondent filed for divorce in the Rabbinical Court, and later filed suit for a division of community property in the Family Court (FC 39732-11-12.) In the course of that proceeding, the Applicant argued that, under the circumstances, the couple’s property should be divided unequally, in view of the fact that she lacks any sources of income, and this under the court’s authority under section 8(2) of the Spouses (Property Relations) Law, 5733-1973 (hereinafter: the Property Relations Law). On February 24, 2013, the Family Court ruled that if the Applicant wishes to request a remedy of unequal property division, she must file the proper suit. Accordingly, on March 18, 2013, the Applicant filed a suit for resource balancing (FC 33489-03-13,) in which she requested that the balancing of resources deviate in her favor from the principle of equal division (so that she will receive 80% of the community property,) and that it additionally be held that a second apartment that the Respondent inherited from his father is a property subject to resource balancing.

6.On September 27, 2011, the Applicant moved out of the Holon apartment and back into the house. On January 4, 2012, the Applicant filed a suit for reconciliation with the Rabbinical Court, and was granted an order for specific residence in the house.[1] 

7.On December 12, 2012, the Family Court delivered its decision in the suit for support (FC 24331-08-11, Judge J. Shaked). The Family Court held that, in this case, the traditional grounds recognized in Jewish law for ruling that the wife lost her entitlement to support were not proven. However, the Family Court added that it would seem that the partners lead separate lives, they both view their marriage as having reached a crisis, and that the marital relationship between them had “died”. The Family Court further held that in this regard that when a “dead” relationship is concerned, there is no justification for preserving it by awarding the woman support. The court also noted that awarding support is subject to the good-faith requirement (referencing LFA 3148/07 A v. B (June 13, 2007) (hereinafter: LFA 3148/07)). Therefore, the court held that for the purpose of the proceedings in regard to support, the court should take notice of the Applicant’s refusal to divorce the Respondent “artificially, in order to gain advantages in the legal proceedings between them,” as well as the fact that the Applicant was deliberately delaying the division of common property in regard to the house (which is valued at about two million shekels), as well as the resource balancing between the couple, by moving into the house and even obtaining an order of specific residence (that was still in effect at the time). The Family Court found that, under the circumstances, obstructing the sale of the house by the Applicant was inconsistent with the good-faith requirement.

8.In ruling on spousal support, the Family Court took into account the Applicant’s behavior, on one hand, while also noting her age (over fifty), the fact that she had not worked in more than three decades during the marriage, as well as the family’s lifestyle, on the other hand. Against that background, the court ruled that spousal support in this case should be awarded only for a fixed period of time. The Family Court explained that awarding spousal support for a fixed period would ensure legal certainty to both parties so that they might plan their next steps and will be more emotionally and financially free to negotiate and reach an agreement that would end their relationship.

9.After examining the Applicant’s expenses, the Family Court ordered spousal support in the amount of NIS 5,650 per month (assuming that she was paying the mortgage on the house), or in the amount of NIS 3,500 (if she was not paying the mortgage), for a fixed period of 24 months from the day the suit was filed, that is until July 15, 2013. Additionally, the Family Court dismissed the Applicant’s suit for support of their son, who was a minor at the time the suit was filed, because the claim was not adequately proven, and considering that at the present time he was already serving in the IDF and did not exclusively reside in the Applicant’s home.

10.The Applicant appealed the Family Court’s ruling on spousal support to the District Court  (FA 21043-02-13, Deputy President I. Schneller, and Judges K. Vardi and R. Levhar-Sharon.) On March 23, 2014, the District Court granted the Applicant’s appeal, but only in regard to the date set for the period of support. The District Court held that it was appropriate to fix the period of the Applicant’s support, subject to setting a later date for ending the period during which the Respondent must pay it, as detailed below.

11.The District Court ruled against intervening in the amount of the support set by the Family Court, as it was based on factual findings, and limited the discussion before it to the general issue of the possibility of limiting the period of support payment and its resolution in the specific case.

12.The District Court noted that the premise for discussion must be that a woman’s support is based on personal status law. At the same time, the District Court reviewed the case-law developments in regard to taking account of the woman’s income prospects in deciding the amount of support, as well as the circumstances of the case (including the length of the marriage and the circumstances of the separation), and the approach that the awarding of support must be subject to the principle of good faith and public policy. As a result, the court noted that where there is “get recalcitrance” by the woman, this would affect her support, while examining whether this should be reflected in the amount or in denying right to support altogether. The District Court commented that denying a woman support on grounds other than religious law ought to serve as a legal tool for overcoming get recalcitrance, and as an incentive for the parties’ divorce, similar to the developments that had taken place in regard to tort claims for get recalcitrance.

13.The District Court went on to specify the factors that must be taken into account in considering a woman’s right to spousal support when she is a “recalcitrant spouse.” In doing so, the District Court considered the following factors, without exhausting the list: the primary reason for refusal – is it a result of a desire to continue to receive support, or a result of other proper reasons; the length of the marriage and its quality; the party at fault for delaying the divorce, and the Rabbinical Court’s findings in this context; the lifestyle prior to the separation, including the issue of the woman’s employment and her ability to secure an income compared to that of the husband; and the issue of whether the property matters between the couple had already been resolved. The District Court emphasized that denying the woman support is not a “penalty” and thus, the court must ensure that she has financial resources even when she is refusing the divorce. Additionally, the District Court emphasized that denying the right to support, or reducing it, is based on the principle of good faith – which is not a “one way street” – and thus the husband’s behavior is also important and should be examined from a broad perspective.

14.The District Court addressed the Family Court’s finding that, in this case, the woman refuses to arrange the divorce, although the Rabbinical Court did not make such a finding, and decided to intervene in that finding. The District Court addressed that fact that the couple had been married for over 35 years, and the Respondent is the one who elected to leave the family home. Therefore, this is not a case of get recalcitrance, particularly when the Family Court refrained from addressing the circumstances around the husband’s leaving. Additionally, the District Court noted that the Applicant was permitted to demand that the property matters be settled before the divorce, and that in light of the fact that there are financial resources of which the Applicant is entitled to part, a situation in which the Respondent enjoys these resources whereas the Applicant must wait for her share is unacceptable. Additionally, it was held, that even were it appropriate to set a limit to the period of support payments, it would have been appropriate to allow the Applicant a longer period in order to get “organized” for the future. This is because the result of the decision by the Family Court could have been that the Applicant would be compelled to agree to any demand presented to her in regard of the financial and property matters.

15.The District Court addressed the fact that the Respondent is expected to retire from his job in several years, and that at that time, the Applicant will be entitled to her share of his pension. On the other hand, the District Court considered the fact that the Respondent’s own entitlement to his pension had not yet materialized. The District Court held that it, indeed, would appear that the couple’s marriage had come to an end, but this finding alone, and the fact that the Applicant was granted an order for specific residence, are insufficient for denying her support considering the other circumstances. Ultimately, the District Court ruled that the date for the  expiration of support would be delayed for a period of three years from the date the Family Court handed down its decision, that is until December 31, 2015, or until the date when the Applicant would start receiving her share in the Respondent’s pension rights, according to the earlier of the two.

16.To complete the picture, it should be noted that the order for specific residence awarded by the Rabbinical Court was revoked in its decision of October 14, 2013. The Rabbinical Court noted the civil court’s impression that the marital relationship between the partners had expired, and that the Applicant was not interested in reconciliation. The Rabbinical Court recommended that the couple negotiate in order to end the marriage.

17.It should further be noted that on March 12, 2015, decisions were handed down in the two suits filed by the Applicant – for preserving property rights and for resource balancing (FC 24358-08-11 and FC 33489-03-13.) As mentioned, in the course of her suit for resource balancing, the Applicant requested that the property be divided unevenly so that 80% of the property would be handed over to her and only 20% would be awarded the Respondent, under section 8(2) of the Property Relations Law. Additionally, she requested the rights to the apartment that the Respondent inherited from his father. The Family Court was presented with an accountant’s report which pointed to two options for balancing the resources between the parties – one based on the current value of the rights, including the pension rights the Respondent had accrued, and the other based on the date the rights are to be realized. Under the latter option, the Applicant would receive most of the payments to which she is entitled through a monthly allocation of a fixed portion of the Respondent’s pension payments, each, once he retires. The Family Court rejected the Applicant’s claim that the resources be unevenly divided in her favor, as well as her claim to include the apartment inherited by the Respondent as property subject to resource balancing. In effect, it was held that the resource balancing would be even, according to the second alternative presented in the expert opinion, that is, in accordance with the date the pension rights would actually materialize. The Family Court added that it was under the impression that the Applicant was obstructing the divorce and refused to accept a get from the Respondent. As a result, the court held (referencing sections 5(c) and (d) of the Property Relations Law) that for the time being, the Applicant would be entitled to a sum of about NIS 73,000 unconditionally, while the remainder of the sums would be awarded her only later, subject to settling the divorce or any other decision by the Family Court. It was also decided that the Applicant bear the Respondent’s costs in the amount of NIS 59,000. The Applicant informed us that she intended to appeal the judgment. Needless to say, we are not concerned with this, and only mention it to complete the picture.

18.We would further add that in the course of the suit for dissolving the common property, and after the Rabbinical Court revoked the order for specific residence, the Family Court ordered to dissolve the community property rights in the house owned by the parties, and appointed the parties’ attorneys as receivers (FC 39732-12-11, decisions dated February 24, 2013, February 25, 2013 and April 14, 2013). Additionally, at the parties’ request and with their consent, a property appraiser was appointed on March 26, 2014, in order to prepare an appraisal of the house  for its sale.

The Application for Leave to Appeal

19.The application for leave to appeal before us challenges the District Court’s decision in regard to fixing the period of the Applicant’s support. The Applicant focuses her arguments on the fact that the District Court elected, despite the considerations it detailed, to terminate her support at the end of 2015, a date which she maintains is “speculative.” According to the Applicant, the District Court’s decision raises a fundamental question as to the Family Court’s authority to set a fixed period of time for spousal support in order to induce the parties to divorce, a decision which effectively denies the woman support contrary to the personal status law that applies to the parties, and despite the fact that the Rabbinical Court did not find her to be a recalcitrant spouse. In the Applicant’s view, this is a novel decision that provides the Family Court with new tools to compel parties to divorce.

20.On the merits, the Applicant maintains that, under the circumstances, her husband must be obligated to pay her support without an end date, and all subject to future developments (including the Respondent’s retirement in about five years time). The Applicant emphasized that she was married to the Respondent for over 35 years, during which time she did not work. She argues that she is currently over 56 years old, she is incapable of working and producing her own income, so that her entitlement to support is essential for her livelihood until she begins to receive her share in the Respondent’s pension in a way that ensures her continual income.

21.On the other hand, the Respondent argues that the request fails to invoke any special legal issue that warrants granting leave to appeal. He claims that the District Court ”was very gracious toward the Applicant”, in light of her unreasonable financial demands – demands which he believes hinder the resolution of the conflict by creating an “artificial delay” of the process. The Respondent adds that had the Rabbinical Court panel deciding the case not been substituted, their divorce decree would have been granted long ago.

22.The Respondent additionally claims that the Applicant’s conduct and her persistent refusal to accept a divorce in the Rabbinical Court, as well as deliberately delaying the hearings there, in stark contrast to her vigorous activity before the civil courts, should have been considered as bad faith that justifies revoking the support. The Respondent further argues, while addressing the unfolding of proceedings between the parties, that the lower courts examined the proceedings between the parties, as well as the factual circumstances, reviewed extensive evidence and made factual findings in which we should not intervene.

23.On May 5, 2015, a hearing on the Application was held before us. In the course of the hearing, the parties provided updates as to the ongoing proceedings between them in the various courts.

24.For her part, the Applicant insisted that the Rabbinical Court decided, on March 16, 2015, that her actions did not justify ordering a get, and rejected the Respondent’s request that she be required to divorce. The Rabbinical Court’s decision noted that, in accordance with the Applicant’s declaration, she is willing to live with the Respondent, and it was possible to end the case with the Applicant’s consent to divorce while granting her appropriate and reasonable compensation.

25.During the hearing, the Respondent updated us that, in the meantime, a decision was handed down by the Family Court in regard to the division of property between the parties, in the course of the Applicant’s suit for resource balancing. Additionally, the parties updated us that the house has yet to be sold, and that they still await the appraiser’s report on the matter.

26.At the end of the hearing, we instructed the parties to submit briefs on the question of whether it is permissible to fix the time period for support during the marriage.

27.On May 31, 2015, the Applicant submitted her brief. In her brief, the Applicant explained that requiring the Respondent to pay support stems from the personal status law that applies to them, which is Jewish religious law, which obligates the man to support his wife until the end of their marriage in divorce. The Applicant added that there is no obligation for a woman to work outside the home in order to be entitled to support, where she had not worked before and is unable to meaningfully produce an income, as in her circumstances. The Applicant notes further that there are no grounds to deny her support under the personal status law, and neither is there justification in her case to reduce the support or deny it for lack of good faith, which puts her in an impossible situation wherein she will remain without any source of income for several years until she becomes entitled to her share of the Respondent’s pension payments. The Applicant further argues that, in principle, there is no decision by this Court that has approved the denial or fixing of the term of support for a woman who is not working, is unable to produce an income, and is completely dependent on her husband for her livelihood.

28.On June 6, 2015, the Respondent filed his brief. The Respondent addressed a husband’s obligation for support under Jewish personal status law, but noted that the case-law balances these obligations against the principle of good faith, and created pragmatic rules to suit the changing times. Through good faith, he argued, the courts tend to reduce or deny support in general, and spousal support in particular, when necessary, as was done in this case, where the court is under the impression that the suit for support was designed merely to create “artificial pressure” in the property negotiations between the parties. The Respondent maintained that it is, indeed, common for family courts to fix the period of support, and that this approach can also be found in the writings of halakhic decisors. In this context, the Respondent presented the view of Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli  (Responsa Mishpatei Shaul, 5) according to which a man is not obligated to support his wife unless she is with him, “and if she leaves, there is no justification for this [halakhic] regulation as all”. It was also argued that the District Court’s decision is pragmatic and eliminates the need for additional deliberation on the issue of the amount of support and setting the date for its termination, as well as practices of investigations and surveillance of the woman in order to determine the extent of her expenses. The Respondent added that the courts’ approach as to fixing the term of a woman’s support is rooted in rehabilitative support awarded a common-law wife based on general contract law. It was thus argued that where the religious law discriminates against a man compared to a woman, its discriminatory instructions to this effect must be interpreted narrowly. One way of doing so may be fixing the period for support, as was done in this case. Additionally, it was argued that the approach adopted in the  case-law of the family courts is to prevent artificial continuation of the marriage where it no longer exists, and that, in this case, that approach should effectively have led to the denial of support altogether.

Discussion and Decision

29.After hearing the parties’ arguments, we are convinced that the law requires granting leave for appeal in this case, and we have decided to hear the application as if an appeal had been filed with the leave of the Court. The issue of fixing the period for a man’s support payments to his wife during their marriage is a new question that relates to the intersection between civil family law and the personal status law, as well as the “synchronization” between the decisions of the religious courts (in our case, the Rabbinical Court) and the rulings of the Family Court. In the background, as I will explain below, are additional questions touching on the financial survival of a partner who relies on the marriage in terms of income, considering, inter alia, that under Jewish religious law a woman is not entitled to support after the divorce (but without restricting the discussion in this context only to women, as opposed to men, who depended on the marriage in a manner that impacted their ability to produce an income). For the purposes of examining the question before us, I shall begin by presenting the complex tapestry of the relevant legal issues to be determined – some are matters of substantive law and some are matters concerning the jurisdiction of the relevant judicial tribunals.

30.Against this background, I will explore the rules that apply to spousal support, both through the lens of the personal status law that applies to the parties and through the lens of general civil law, all as related to the question of the “division of labor” between the family courts and the rabbinical courts as mandated under current legislation.

The Premise: The Connection between Entitlement to Support and the Marital Relationship under Personal Status Law and the Issues it raises

31.Section 2(a) of the Family Law Amendment (Maintenance) Law, 5719-1959 [13 L.S.I. 73] (hereinafter: the Maintenance Law) mandates: “A person is liable for the maintenance of his spouse in accordance with the provisions of the personal law applying to him.” Therefore, the premise for the discussion before us is the personal status as it applies to the parties. In our case, this is Jewish religious law, which closely links the woman’s entitlement to support to the marital relationship. As a general rule, only a married woman is entitled to support (subject to considering the income “of her own labor” in setting the amount of support). As opposed to this, after the divorce the woman is no longer entitled to support for herself (and this, as apposed to the maintenance awarded minor children that are, in effect, paid to the woman if the children are in her custody) (see also: Ben-Zion Schereschewsky and Michael Corinaldi vol. 1, 291-379 (2015) (hereinafter: Schereschewsky and Corinaldi)). This approach of Jewish religious law binds the family courts as well. This is an important point of departure for the discussion here, although it is not its final destination, as we explain below and considering the need to account for a wide range of principles that apply in the area of family law, including those drawn from civil law.

32.The application of Jewish religious law on awarding support between Jewish partners who married according to Jewish law – which is, as mentioned, the premise for the current legal situation – may occasionally create difficulties, and even incentives for unfavorable conduct. One of the immediate outcomes may be leaving the woman with no source of income after the end of the marriage, and in certain cases, even beforehand. Apparently, this outcome is not anticipated in the case of a woman who has worked and has been fully integrated into the workforce even during the marriage (and in any event, the amount of support to which she is entitled is often balanced against “her own labor”). However, this outcome is also highly problematic when we are concerned with a woman who, under the “division of labor” between her and her partner, did not participate in the workforce, and possibly has no profession or prospects of becoming integrated into the workforce due to her relatively advanced age (even if she may “formally” seek employment, and without detracting from the duty to combat the phenomenon of age-based discrimination). There is, thus, concern that women who divorce at an advanced age, and who are not integrated into the workforce, would descend into poverty, particularly when the community property amassed over the years is itself modest. As a result, women under these circumstances may refuse to divorce, even when there are no real prospects for the marital relationship to continue. This is because when support is contingent upon the marital relationship, as in Jewish law, divorce is likely to cut off their source of income.

33.The concern about the implications of ending the marital relationship on the entitlement to support for a woman who did not work during the marriage is exacerbated in those situations where the division of property between the parties is yet to be done. Should the woman stop being entitled to support, on one hand, while at the same time not be awarded immediate control over her share of the community property, on the other hand, the difficult outcome may compel her into a situation of no alternative but to unnecessarily waive some of her rights to the community property, in an attempt to achieve a prompt agreement as to the division of property and the ability to realize it.

34.The case before us demonstrates, so I believe, the complexity of the described situation. Of course, get recalcitrance – for financial reasons of any others – must not be encouraged, but it is also imperative to provide solutions for one who relied on the relationship and can no longer be integrated into the workforce, or alternatively requires a relatively extended training period in order to do so (for instance, by acquiring a new profession). This applies, of course, mutatis mutandis, to male partners who have relied on a  relationship in which his partner is part of the workforce and advances in it. Though the personal status law recognizes only a woman’s right to support, as I show below, under the general civil law, in the appropriate cases, a man’s reliance on the marital relationship may also be considered when granting the proper remedy to facilitate “adjustment” to independent financial existence (to the extent the “division of labor” in the former relationship justifies this).

Jewish Personal Status Law: The Death of Marriage, Obligation to Divorce and the Termination Date for Support

35.As noted, since the point of departure in the case before us is the personal status law that applies to the parties, we must first outline its principles in regard to an obligation to divorce and denying a woman’s right to support. In effect, the case before us raises two questions that, while related to one another, must be distinguished from one another. The first question is under which circumstances a woman my be declared a “recalcitrant spouse” even when there are no “classic” grounds for divorce, only because she refuses to divorce despite the fact that her relationship with her husband has reached an end in the sense of “disgust”, often described as the “death of the marriage” (see for example, Avishalom Westreich inhereinafter: Westreich)). The second question is what are the conditions to denying a woman’s right to support under circumstances characterized as the “death of the marriage.” These questions should be addressed briefly – not in order to purport to resolve the religious law disputes regarding them, but in order to understand their scope and their implications to the case before us.

36.The death of the marriage as grounds for divorce – as a general rule, there is a dispute among Jewish law decisors as to the whether an irreparable rift between the couple (regardless of the question of fault leading to this situation) justifies obligating a divorce (Westreich, 91). There is, indeed, halakhic support for the view that an irreparable rift in a marriage may give rise to a right to divorce, although that view is not universally accepted (Westreich,  93.) Such an approach is also consistent with economic concepts of human dignity that guide Israeli law. In any event, as I will explain below, determining this question does not “automatically” impact upon the determination in of the support issue. First, even if the Rabbinical Court decides to order the parties to divorce, it must still decide  upon the implications of that decision for the obligation of support. Requiring a divorce may be the “first step” toward revoking the right to support, but such a decision is a separate one, which may involve additional steps such as entrusting the get and the ketubah to a third party, that is depositing them with the Rabbinical Court for the woman. Second, even in the absence of a decision to require a divorce, it may be appropriate, in certain cases, to revoke the right to support, and this, as well, in a decision that may require additional steps such as entrusting the get and the ketubah to a third party.

37.Right to Support in the situation of the Death of a Marriage: As was already explained, the woman’s right to support in Jewish religious law stems from the marriage itself. This right expires when the woman is considered “rebellious” under Jewish law or where she is required to divorce under a “classic” ground for divorce, such as adultery (see:  Schereschewsky and Corinaldi, 309). Ordinarily, a woman is entitled to support only when she lives with her husband. When they live separately, the reason for the separation must be investigated (ibid., 335). Generally, a woman loses her right to support when she was the one to leave the home, unless “he was the cause”, i.e., she had a good reason to do so (ibid., 335, 354-57).

38.The issue of the right to support becomes more complicated in cases such as the one at hand, that is, in the case of the “death of a marriage.” The issue is partially related to the issue discussed above – whether the “death of a marriage” is grounds for requiring a get. However, as explained, these issues do not fully overlap. Doubts arise, inter alia, from the fact that denying the right to support may be seen as undermining the Decree of Rabbeinu Gershom prohibiting divorce without the woman’s consent due to the fact that non-payment of support may create economic pressure that would compel the woman to divorce against her will. In this context, Rabbi Elijah Mizrachi’s (the Re’em) position is well known. According to him, the husband may be exempted from supporting his wife when he could have lawfully divorced her against her will, but is prohibited to do so only due to the Decree of Rabbeinu Gershom. However, this position is considered, in many ways, a minority approach, and many halakhic decisors establish conditions for exempting the husband from paying support in this situation. Thus, for example, according to the view of Maimonides, this is contingent upon the husband depositing the get and ketubah with a third party. Additionally, Rabbi Herzog wrote, in regard to the approach of the Re’em, that “where the court is persuaded that she is responsible for disturbing a peaceful life (although the law does not require her to accept a get), and that there is no longer hope for restoring peace in the home, then it is permissible to rely on this approach, along while providing compensation so that she is not left without support, but of course this requires care and prudence and serious review in each and every case, in accordance with the situation and the circumstances.” In any event, clearly the basis for releasing the husband from paying support is an authorized finding of the Rabbinical Court that the marriage has come to an end, in terms of a ”disgust” claim (though the Rabbinical Court may refrain from deciding on actually requiring a get). Such a finding, and a consequent denial of support, usually involves entrusting the get and ketubah to a third party, acts that require, of course, active participation of the Rabbinical Court (see also: HCJ 7407/11 A v. Great Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem, para. 12 (January 27, 2013) and references there. For a detailed account of the approaches in Jewish law regarding support where the woman refuses to divorce, see: Rabbi Meir Batist, A Woman Obligated to Accept a Get: Has She Lost Her Support?, 23 125 (2003) (Hebrew); Rabbi Moshe Be’eri and Yuval Sinai, Obligating Support for A Woman Who Refuses a Get, The Center for Applied Jewish Law (February 9, 2007.) (Hebrew)).

Questions of Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over Divorce, Jurisdiction over Support and the Relationship between them

39.Questions of jurisdiction must also be examined, alongside the examination of the substantive law, and we must address the dual system of litigation in the area of family law – in the rabbinical courts and in the family courts.  As we will see, the answer to the question before us is, in significant part, as much a result of the division of jurisdiction in family law as of the principles of substantive law that apply in this field.

40.As we know, the religious courts have exclusive jurisdiction over matters at the “core” of marriage and divorce. Family courts, too, hold jurisdiction over other matters in the area of personal status law. For the purposes of the case before us, it is unnecessary to elaborate on the distinctions between the different faiths’ religious courts and it is sufficient that we address rabbinical courts’ exclusive jurisdiction over all matters regarding marriage and divorce, as regulated by the Rabbinical Courts Jurisdiction (Marriage and Divorce) Law, 5713-1953.

41.The Family Court is indeed authorized to hear a claim for a woman’s support, but as already discussed above, under the Maintenance Law the decision itself should be a product of the principles of personal status law detailed above, in this case Jewish law. Accordingly, when the Family Court hears a claim for support, it must determine whether there are grounds to end it in accordance with halakha.

42.What, then, must the Family Court do when faced with a claim for support where the husband argues in his defense that he is not obligated to pay because the woman is a “recalcitrant spouse?” The answer is that the Family Court cannot deny the right to support in the absence of an appropriate finding by the Rabbinical Court in the divorce case (this is distinct from the “classic” grounds, such as adultery, which the Family Court can consider independently). Indeed, it would appear that the Family Court may also address questions that are not under its “incidental” jurisdiction, in accordance with its authority under section 76 of the Courts Law [Consolidated Version], 5744-1984, and subject to the Rabbinical Court’s authority to find otherwise (CA 634/61 Makitan v. Makitan, IsrSC 15 945 (1962); Issachar Rosen-Zvi, 295 (2015) (Hebrew)). However, when the question at the heart of the dispute is whether to revoke the woman’s right to support for “get recalcitrance” (in the absence of a decision on this question by the Rabbinical Court,) it would be improper for the Family Court to address the issue. First, a claim of recalcitrance is closely tied to the matter of the divorce, which as noted, is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rabbinical Court. Therefore, in a case of a claim of recalcitrance, litigation is conducted concurrently in the Rabbinical Court and the Family Court, and thus it must be viewed from the perspective of the principle of comity between courts (see LCA 4982/92 Tabib v. Tabib, IsrSC 48(3) 390, 294-95 (1994); HCJ 8497/00, Feig-Felman v. Felman, IsrSC 52(2) 118, 134-40 (2003); HCJ 9734/04, A v. Great Rabbinical Court, IsrSC 59(2) 295, 303 (2004)). Under this principle, the Family Court should wait for the decision of the Rabbinical Court in the matter. Reciprocal comity requires that as long as the Rabbinical Court believes that a demand for reconciliation by the party wishing not to divorce is sincere and in good faith, and that the time for determining that the marriage has died has yet to come, the civil court should not rule otherwise while the proceeding in the Rabbinical Court is still pending. As noted, considering the principle of comity between courts is necessary in this situation, since the divorce refusal claim cannot be raised out of thin air without the husband having filed for divorce in the Rabbinical Court. Second, as detailed above, according to religious law itself, denying the right to support in a case of requiring a divorce should be followed (in many opinions) by supplemental steps, such as entrusting the get and the ketubah amount to a third party. Denying the right to support, as a stand-alone measure, does not, therefore, reflect the religious law.

43.Waiting for the decision of the Rabbinical Court on the issue of divorce obligation is not expected to create any mishaps, considering the temporary nature of a support decision. A decision to award support is always contingent upon changes in circumstances, and a court may be approached repeatedly to decide the support issue in light of changing circumstances. Therefore, the Family Court need not be concerned that it may award support to a woman despite the fact she may be declared a “recalcitrant spouse.” If and when this happens, her partner may apply to the Family Court to adjust the support award. The logic of this proposed approach can be illustrated by the reverse situation, as well. Consider a situation in which the Rabbinical Court finds that the woman is required to divorce and she refuses to accept the divorce. Could the Family Court nevertheless find that she is not a recalcitrant spouse and that she is entitled to support under personal status law? Because the negative answer to this question is clear, it ought to be clear that unilateral intervention by the Family Court in findings in regard get recalcitrance in order to restrict a woman’s support is unacceptable.

44.It should be noted in this regard that the Family Court sought to rely on LFA 3148/07, cited above, as an example of considering recalcitrance when awarding support. However, this decision by my colleague (then) Justice E. Rubinstein, which generally addressed the application of the principle of good faith to issues of awarding support, cannot support this. In that case, it was held that a woman’s support may not be increased beyond the rate she was originally awarded  in light of changes in her former partner’s separate financial circumstances. However, our case effectively concerns the revoking of a woman’s support (in the sense of setting a date for their expiration), rather than merely setting their amount. Additionally, invoking the principle of good faith may not be used as a “detour” to waiting for the decision of the Rabbinical Court that is concurrently adjudicating the very same issue.

45.Indeed, we must aspire that the partner delaying the divorce without just cause does not gain the upper hand only because that partner falsely made a reconciliation claim (see also: Pinhas Shifman,  122 (2012) (Hebrew)). However, accomplishing this cannot be through limiting entitlement to support while the divorce proceedings are still pending. Of course, a finding by the Rabbinical Court that the woman is required to accept a get, insofar as there is such finding, would itself serve as cause for amending the support award. However, as longs as the proceeding in the Rabbinical Court is pending, and that court believes the time for divorce has not yet arrived, the civil court cannot base its decision on support on a different finding.

The Civil Law: Rehabilitative Support and the Marital Relationship

46.Though this was not articulated in this way in the District Court’s decision, the case before us, and similar cases, highlight a real difficulty that repeatedly comes up in divorce proceedings – the disincentive to agree to a divorce when the woman has no independent sources of income, and where, under the personal status law (here, Jewish halakha), divorce would leave her without an income. In effect, the Respondent believes that the Applicant refuses to divorce him only in order to continue to be entitled to support, and it seems the lower courts were under the same impression. The avenue these courts have chosen is problematic in light of the principles detailed above. The lower courts based their decisions on the finding that the Applicant is delaying the divorce only because she wishes to improve her financial situation through the support to which she is entitled as long as she remains married. As noted, the jurisdiction to determine whether this is indeed the case is in the hands of the Rabbinical Court, not the civil court. However, admittedly, the difficulty that the lower courts point out is real.

47.I believe that the way to handle this difficulty is different. It should not take the route of denying the right to support based on a finding that the women is a “recalcitrant spouse” (as longs and the Rabbinical Court has not decided this issue in the course of the divorce proceedings), but rather should be based on the recognition that, in appropriate cases, where a woman is divorced after years of not working outside of the home, she should be entitled to “civil” support with a rehabilitative objective, that is “rehabilitative” support according to general principles of the civil law. Of course, since this is a “civil” principle, this must apply, with the necessary changes, to a man who has divorced and is facing the same conditions, as well.  This Court has already said repeatedly that there is a contractual aspect to support, and general principles of fairness and good faith should also be considered on a case-by-case basis. I believe that these are principles that may be taken into account for the purpose of awarding rehabilitative support where, under religious law, the woman does not have a right to support. This would apply to a partner – man or woman – who is left with very limited or no ability to produce an income after the marriage, due to their reliance on the marital relationship and the “division of labor” between the partners during their relationship.

48.The right to an award of “rehabilitative support” (under the principles of reliance and good faith) has been recognized by this Court in regard to partners in a  cohabitation relationship that is not subject to regulation by religious personal status law – “common-law” partners (see: CA 805/82 Versano v. Cohen, IsrSc 37(1) 529, 531-32 (1983); CA 2000/97 Lindorn v. Karnit – Road Accident Victims Compensation Fund, IsrSC 55(1) 12, 33-34 (1999)), or even couples married in civil ceremonies abroad (see: CA 8256/99 A v. B, IsrSC 58(2) 213 (2003); HCJ 2232/03 A v. Tel Aviv Regional Rabbinical Court, IsrSC 61(3) 496 (2006) [http://versa.cardozo.yu.edu/opinions/v-tel-aviv-jaffa-regional-rabbinica...).

49.To date, this Court has yet to recognize the right of spouses married under Jewish law to “rehabilitative support”. However, at least prima facie, we should not rule out the possibility of awarding support under similar principles of protecting reliance, fairness, and good faith even when the couple is or was lawfully married. For example, consider CA 4590/92 Kahana v. Kahana (January 30, 1994) which addressed the matter of a kohen who married a divorced woman and was obligated to pay her support even after the Rabbinical Court found, in the course of the divorce case, that the woman was required to divorce (given that the marriage was prohibited).

50.How can this obligation, to the extent that it regards women, be reconciled with their right to support under religious law? I believe that rehabilitative support may be awarded under the civil law only to a woman who is no longer entitled to support under religious law (and, mutatis mutandis, to a man, too, as he is not entitled to support under religious law to begin with). This may arise at two possible points in time when the man’s duty to pay support expires under Jewish law – either before the divorce is granted but when there is a cause for denying support, or  after the divorce is granted, thus ending the right to support. This is consistent with the approach of Jewish religious law – both relevant points in time, whether before the divorce and after it, are occasions where the marital relationship substantively “ends.” In effect, awarding rehabilitative support even to a woman who was married under Jewish law (subject to appropriate restrictions, such as where she did not work, or worked only on a limited basis, and considering her anticipated challenges in integrating into the workforce) is consistent with the halakhic system in a broad sense. In practice, the woman’s ketubah is meant, inter alia, to guarantee her means of support at least for a period after the end of the marriage, and when she is no longer entitled to support (after divorce) (see for example: Eliav Shochetman, The Woman’s Status in Marriage and Divorce Law, 380, 398-401 (Francis Raday, Carmel Shalev and Michal Liban-Kobi, eds. (1995) (Hebrew)). Adjusting this idea to present circumstances (see and compare: LFA 9606/11 Estate of A (deceased) v. A (May 20, 2013)) supports awarding rehabilitative support to a married woman who was not integrated into the workforce at all, or only partially so, and where the end of the marriage would make it difficult to integrate into the workforce or where time would be needed to adapt in order to do so fully. Additionally, there are halakhic approaches that support awarding compensation to a woman who divorces, as another means (in addition to the ketubah) to provide her a “decent existence” after the divorce, as explained by Menachem Elon in his book (see Menachem Elon, 233-37 (2005) (Hebrew)).

51. As noted above, the question of whether the wife has income potential was already examined by the Family Court for the purposes of reducing the amount of the support awarded her under Jewish religious law (see: Halperin-Kaddari, Wife Support: From Perception of Difference to Perception of [In]Equality, 7 767, 789-91 (2005) (Hebrew); CA 6136/93 Bikel v. Bikel (July 6, 1994); CA 5930/93 Padan v. Padan, para. 2 (December 22, 1994)). The other side of the coin would appear to be accounting for a situation where the woman has no income potential, and where this fact results, inter alia,  from her reliance on the marital relationship (as the Court also saw things in the Acase, at 403). Moreover, the enactment of the Basic Laws, and the recognition that the right to a minimally dignified existence is a derivative right of human dignity, appear to reinforce the legal basis for awarding rehabilitative support as a duty stemming from the general  law – regardless of personal status law (though in a manner that is consistent with it, as explained above) – to the extent this is necessary for a minimally dignified existence. Indeed, a divorced woman has no independent right that her former partner ensure her right to a minimally dignified existence. This right is, first and foremost, a right in regard to the state (HCJ 366/03 Commitment to Peace and Social Justice Society v. Minister of Finance, IsrSC 60(3) 464 (2005) [http://versa.cardozo.yu.edu/opinions/commitment-peace-and-social-justice... HCJ 10662/04 Hassan v. National Insurance Institute (February 28, 2012) [http://versa.cardozo.yu.edu/opinions/hassan-v-national-insurance-institute]). However, the factor of guaranteeing a minimally dignified existence should influence the interpretation of support law (as this was already considered in the past for the purposes of limiting the scope execution of a support debt (see and compare: LCA 4905/98 Gamzo v. Yeshayahu, IsrSC 55(3) 360 (2001)).

52.Rehabilitative support of this type may reduce the incentive for “get recalcitrance” stemming from economic reasons, as well as provide the civil court with an effective tool for considering fairness and good faith. Such rehabilitative support could provide a partial response to the outcome resulting from  partners who contributed to maintaining the household possibly finding themselves in a situation where their work has no realizable “market value” (see: Shahar Lifshitz 332-334 (2005) (Hebrew) (hereinafter: Lifshitz)). To a certain degree, the possibility of awarding rehabilitative support is an obvious supplement to accounting for “career assets” in the division of property (see: LFA 4623/04 A v. B, IsrSC 62(3) 66 (2007) (hereinafter: LFA 4623/04); HCJ 8928/06 A v. Jerusalem Great Rabbinical Court of Appeals, IsrSC 63(1) 271, 280 (2008) (hereinafter: HCJ 8929/06)). Accounting for “career assets” expresses the “advantage” enjoyed by the partner whose work during the years of marriage acquired a special value, particularly where there are clear disparities in income potential because the partner who stayed at home facilitated the working partner’s ability to maximize their income potential (LFA 4623/04, at 86). On the other hand, awarding rehabilitative support also reflects, in appropriate cases, the special “harm” suffered by the partner who exited the workforce and was thus left in a position in which it became difficult to reintegrate into the workforce because of reliance upon the marital relationship and the understandings created within it. Indeed, these considerations may be reflected in the division of property, but that is not always the reality (Lifshitz, at 350-51.) Of course, awarding rehabilitative support must also take account of the manner of the property division– to the extent it already has occurred.

53.It is important to emphasize: rehabilitative support is what the title suggests. It is not a permanent entitlement to support, but an entitlement designed to achieve the rehabilitative objective of integration into the workforce – an end that advances dignified existence for the period of “rehabilitation”, which reflects the reliance upon the partnered relationship to the extent that the ability to produce an income was compromised. In practice, this may also be expressed as a “transition” until the realization of a different right to an income, for example, from a pension fund. Therefore,  as a rule, setting a fixed period for the support payments is possible, and may be required, although under certain circumstances this may be for an extended period, particularly where there is a significant difference between the partner who never worked and the supporting partner, and where the separation is at such a late stage of the partnered relationship that the ability of the partner who stayed at home to produce an income is very low.

54.Therefore these are considerations that must be taken into account when determining whether one of the partners is entitled to rehabilitative support, and what their amount ought to be. The central issue in this context is the likelihood of alternative sources of income. Therefore, the questions of professional training and work experience of the “home-based” partner, their age (including how close they are to retirement age,) as well as the value of the partners’ property and whether it has already been divided are important. On the other hand, considerations of fault as to responsibility for the relationship ending should not be taken into account. Generally, the prevalent approach to the property and economic aspect of family law is that it should not be subject to fault considerations (see also: HCJ 8928/06; LFA 7272/10 A v. B, para. 24 of my opinion (January 7, 2014)). To this we may add the fact that considering fault may also hinder the rehabilitative purpose of the support award, since it diminishes the abandoned partner’s incentive to rehabilitate through integration into the workforce.

55.In theory, one might argue that recognizing the possibility of awarding rehabilitative support will not reduce the phenomenon of “financial” divorce refusal by women in a case in which a woman may attempt to “drag out” the divorce in order to maximize her right to support as long as the marital relationship continues. This is because while recognizing rehabilitative support may address the concern that the partner who did not work during the marriage would be left without any source of income when it ends, it does not negate the fact that a woman is entitled to support under  personal-status law as long as she is married and there are no grounds for denying it, as explained. Rehabilitative support does not diminish this right and thus one might argue that women would attempt to “drag out” the marriage even where they may be awarded rehabilitative support once the marriage is over. Indeed, rehabilitative support does not fully resolve this problem, but I do believe that it significantly reduces it. First, from the moment when there is real “rift” between the parties and the woman no longer lives with her husband (whether by her desire or by his) it is likely she will attempt to return to the workforce or pursue professional training, and the need to do so, in the absence of any obstacle, is part of the good-faith duty imposed by the general law (to clarify, this duty is distinct from the considerations of fault in the relationship’s dissolution). In this context, the time that has lapsed during which the woman could have attempted to return to work may be factored into the decision whether to extend the “rehabilitative support” (considering her circumstances, including her age and health). Second, recognizing the institution of rehabilitative support may be expected to reduce the incentive for artificial delay of the marriage, which burdens partners in a situation of “rift” (and all the more so for the woman, considering the Jewish law consequences of an extra-marital relationship).

Other Civil Aspects of Divorce Refusal

56.At first glance, the possibility of seeking civil remedies through a tort suit in cases of get recalcitrance would appear to raise a tangential question to those under examination  (see, for example: FC (Jlem) 21162/07 A v. B (January 21, 2010) (hereinafter: FC 21162/07); FC (Krayot) 48362-07-12 A v. B (February 28, 2013); FC (Jlem) 46459-07-12 Z. G. v. S. G. (August 17, 2014)). As noted, in our case the District Court referred to this practice in order to infer that just as divorce refusal may serve as a cause of action in tort, so the Family Court may consider it for the purpose of reducing (or even revoking) the entitlement to support. In my opinion, this analogy is not at all obvious, and I believe it is misplaced.

57.I shall first note that the question as to when one may prevail in such a suit has yet to be addressed by this Court, and the case before us is not the proper case for discussing it (for the dispute on this matter see: Yehiel Kaplan and Ronen Perry, Tort Liability of Recalcitrant Husbands, 28 773 (2005) (Hebrew); Yifat Biton, Feminine Matters, Feminist Analysis and the Dangerous Gaps between Them: A Response to Yehiel Kaplan and Ronen Perry, 28 I, 871 (2005)). I shall, therefore, only note  that even according to the view that filing a tort suit for get recalcitrance does not depend on a prior ruling of the Rabbinical Court “obligating a divorce”, this would not ground an analogy that would permit taking the indirect path of denying a right to support that is prescribed by Jewish law, without an authorized decision by the Rabbinical Court as to the “death of the marriage”. There are several reasons for distinguishing the two types of suits, as I shall explain below.

58.In my opinion, the primary reason for distinguishing between the cases is that the right to support ordinarily concerns the ongoing maintenance of the woman entitled to support. Therefore, revoking it may affect her ability to survive in the most basic sense, as earlier explained. A decision to revoke entitlement to support is an extreme act when compared to awarding compensation for get recalcitrance (which, in any event, is subject to the rules governing execution of judgments, which condition enforcement upon ensuring that the party concerned be left with the means for existence). Moreover, denying the right to support may leave the woman destitute, and thus lead to “surrendering” to accepting a divorce in order to survive. On the other hand, taking the opposite step of increasing the support amount paid by the man (even in the absence of a divorce obligation by the Rabbinical Court) would necessarily be limited by laws restricting enforcement so as to ensure the right to a minimally dignified existence, as held in the Gamzo case. The result may, therefore, be asymmetrical for men and women.

59.Another, more formal but not unimportant reason for the distinction derives from the fact that tort suits for get recalcitrance are adjudicated exclusively under civil law, in accordance with the tests of the tort of negligence, and in any event, the matter is given to the exclusive jurisdiction of the civil courts. On the other hand, determining issues of support is contingent on the marital relationship and draws upon religious law.

From the General to the Particular

60.In light of the legal principles detailed above, I am of the opinion that the appeal should be granted.

61.First, the District Court (and prior to that, the Family Court) was guided by considerations of preventing “get recalcitrance”, but did so without positively determining that the Applicant is required to accept a get, and this while a parallel proceeding on the matter of the divorce was pending before the Rabbinical Court, which holds exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. A woman’s right to support cannot be revoked merely for considerations related to the subject matter of divorce refusal, without a positive finding of the Rabbinical Court that the woman is required to  accept a get. It must be either one or the other – if the woman is a recalcitrant spouse in the sense that the Rabbinical Court found her to be required to accept a get, or it is found that the marriage has come to its end and the get and her ketubah amount were deposited for her, with all that implies,  then she is not entitled to support under religious law. Or, if she is not a recalcitrant spouse, there are no grounds for revoking her support under religious law and neither can it be set for a fixed period of time at this point.

62.Indeed, it would appear from the Regional Rabbinical Court’s decision to revoke the specific residence order, as well as from its most recent decision, which was presented before us, that the Rabbinical Court was also under the impression that the marriage between the parties has, to a large extent, come to an end. However, the Rabbinical Court refrained to find as such, and also refrained from finding that the Applicant was required to accept a get. Instead, the Rabbinical Court sufficed in recommending that the partners reach an agreement between themselves. Of course, such findings are dynamic, and to the extent that the Respondent is able to persuade the Rabbinical Court that his wife is a recalcitrant spouse, this finding would have clear implications as to her entitlement to support, as well.

63.In our case, no “classic” ground was found, in the words of the Family Court, for revoking the Applicant’s support under religious law (see para. 17 of its opinion). The District Court did not find otherwise, but only wished to take into account, inter alia, the fact of the woman’s “recalcitrance”, although it noted that under the circumstances this was not “recalcitrance” that immediately leads to revoking the right to support. The District Court addressed additional considerations that are relevant to the “rehabilitation” of the marital relationship and the extent of her fault in ending it. I do not believe that these findings can stand. As explained above, to the extent that at this stage there are no grounds under religious law to deny the Applicant’s support (and even more so in light of the most recent decision of the Rabbinical Court presented to the Court) – she is lawfully entitled to it. In addition, to the extent that it be held in the future that the Applicant is not entitled to her support under religious law (and I do not, of course, take any position in this regard), then it would also be necessary to explore whether she must be awarded rehabilitative support, under the principles outlined, and as a result of a concrete examination of the woman’s prospects for securing an income. Indeed, the District Court noted that in setting the amount of support, a court must consider various factors, including whether the woman would have sources of income. The District Court even stated that one of the rationales for the award is affording the Applicant a reasonable period of time to prepare for the future. However, in applying this principle, it did not clarify to what extent the time it set might facilitate the woman’s ability to secure an income when that period of time comes to an end.

64.As noted, after the delivery of the District Court’s decision regarding support, which this proceeding concerns, a decision as to the division of the community property was also handed down, which was presented to us. The Respondent may, therefore, wish to argue that the community property at the woman’s disposal would serve as her source of income. However, this argument must be examined on its merits, and we cannot make the desired assumption. What matters for our purposes is that when the decision regarding support was delivered, there still was no decision regarding the property, and its outcome could have left the Applicant with no source of income. On the merits, the consideration of the woman’s share of the community property for the purposes of her ongoing income must factor in the date of sale of the house, the expected sale price to be received, and other information, while examining the woman’s living expenses during the time she may remain without a source of income, and the fact that she relied on the partnered relationship with her husband and the “division of labor” in that framework.

65.Under these circumstances, I would propose that my colleagues decide that the Family Court’s decision as to fixing the period of the support be reversed, and that to the extent that there is not change in the couple’s circumstances, including the circumstances relating to the proceedings in the Rabbinical Court, the Respondent continue to pay the Applicant’s support in accordance with the Family Court’s decision, without setting a time for the payments’ expiration.

66.I wish to end my opinion by expressing hope that despite the conflict between the parties and the great pain they have inflicted on one another, they may find the strength to ultimately conclude all the proceedings between them, which at the end of the day, benefit neither of them.

Afterward: Between the Principle of Good Faith and the Rules of Jurisdiction

67.At this stage, after completing my opinion, I have received the opinion of my colleague Deputy President E. Rubinstein. My colleague believes that fixing the term of the support awarded a woman by reason of “recalcitrance” should be permitted even without an appropriate ruling by the Rabbinical Court, on the basis of the required application of the good-faith principle. He further explains that such decisions may “encourage” the parties to reach agreements and end the marriage. I wish to disagree in this regard, although, of course, I do not dispute the general statement that the principle of good faith should appropriately apply to an adjudication between parties in the area of family law, just as it must apply to any other issue.

68.Indeed, there can be no dispute that the principle of good faith is an overarching principle of Israeli law, and rightly so. Additionally, I concur with my colleague that the principles of fairness and decency can also be found in the fundamental principles of Jewish law itself, and that is encouraging. However, as I explain below, the dispute between us does not concern whether the principle of good faith obligates the parties and the trial court, but other questions – how it ought to be implemented, and primarily which court does Israeli law entrust with ruling on the question of the death of the marriage, and what are the consequences of that finding for personal status law?

69.Given that in the matter of the parties’ before us two parallel proceedings are pending – both in the Rabbinical Court and in the Family Court – I do not believe that we can accept a situation wherein the Family Court issues a ruling concerning recalcitrance that is inconsistent with the rulings of the Rabbinical Court on this very same issue. Insisting on the principle of comity between courts, a point whose importance my colleague, too, emphasizes, is not consistent with conflicting rulings on this matter on an issue that is at the core of the Rabbinical Court’s jurisdiction, and while this issue is yet pending before it.

70.My colleague explains that the special care that the Rabbinical Court exercises in regard to recalcitrance must be taken into account. My view is different. The Family Court cannot impose sanctions under the Rabbinical Courts (Enforcement of Divorce Judgments) Law, 5755-1995, against the husband where it is persuaded that he is a recalcitrant spouse in the absence of the proper finding by the Rabbinical Court, regarding which the Rabbinical Court also exercises great care. Similarly, there is no place for the Family Court to deviate from the Rabbinical Court’s position to the detriment of women in matters of support. Otherwise, we may undermine the delicate balance upon which the division of jurisdiction in Israeli family law is founded.

71.Even on the merits, I do not believe that the principle of good faith is directed, in this case, at setting support for a particular period of time. My colleague bases his position, inter alia, on the set of incentives that influences women’s conduct during divorce proceedings, and points to the contribution of the position he expresses in his opinion to promoting compromise between the parties. This is but one possibility. However, a no less reasonable possibility is that of “pressuring” a woman who has no independent sources of income to agree to divorce under unfair conditions, only because of her concern over becoming truly impoverished. We must remember that the procedural equality between the couple when one has a steady income and the other lacks a steady income is a fictional equality, and in this sense, the proverbial sand in the hourglass runs out unilaterally to the woman’s disadvantage.

72.The response to my colleague’s concern about divorce “extortion” by the woman may be found in other proceedings of a civil nature. This solution is preferable because it does not involve putting existential pressure on a woman left without a steady income, but rather allows for appropriate “recalculation” after the fact, to the extent it is needed.

73.Should my opinion be accepted, I would propose that the appeal be granted as stated in paragraph 65 above, and that the Respondent bear the Applicant’s costs in the amount of NIS 20,000.

Deputy President E. Rubinstein:

1.I have carefully read my colleague Justice Barak-Erez’s comprehensive opinion. Her opinion presents weighty questions for consideration, however, at the end of the day, I cannot concur in her opinion as to the outcome of this case, although the idea of rehabilitative support she discusses is appealing. Should my opinion be heard, the District Court’s decision – which, in essence, took the same route as the Family Court – would be upheld. I shall restate the gist of the matter, as my colleague presented the details of the proceedings. We are concerned with a couple who married and lived together for 35 years, after which they separated and proceeded to sue each other. Over the years, the husband (the Respondent) worked continually at a regular workplace, carrying pension benefits, whereas the Applicant worked at home and managed the household. She worked out of the home for only brief periods of time. I shall not go into the issues of property described by my colleague, as we are here concerned with the issue of support. The Family Court believed that in light of the Applicant’s refusal to divorce in order to gain advantages in the property proceedings, and for considerations of good faith, support must be set for a fixed period of time that would take all the factors into account. The period set was for two years from the date of filing the suit in 2011. The District Court noted that refusal of a get affects support, but that in this case the Rabbinical Court has yet to decide on the issue of recalcitrance, and the personal status law applies. Thus the support was set for three years from the date of the Family Court’s decision (December 12, 2012) or until the day the Applicant begins receiving her share of the Respondent’s pension, according to the earlier of the two. Hence the application, and it should be noted that we tried unsuccessfully to lead the parties to a compromise.

Support for Fixed Periods

2.My colleague believes that as long as there are no grounds under personal status law to revoke a woman’s support, it must be awarded as her legal right. Indeed, in her view, it is incorrect for the Family Court to revoke a woman’s support when the Rabbinical Court refrained from finding that she is a recalcitrant spouse in the course of the divorce proceeding.

3.Indeed, as my colleague also noted that, under personal status law, only a married woman is entitled to support. This rule binds the Family Court, which follows personal status law in matters of support (section 2(a) of the Family Law Amendment (Maintenance) Law, 5719-1959; B. Schereschewsky and M. Corinaldi, , vol. 1 (2015) 291-92) (Hebrew), yet, as my colleague carefully explained: “This approach of Jewish religious law … is an important point of departure for the discussion here, although it is not its final destination, as explained below and considering the need to account for a wide range of principles that apply in the area of family law, including those drawn from civil law” (para. 31) (emphasis added – E.R.). One of these – and one of the most important – is the principle of good faith.

4.Our law recognizes the principle of good faith as a “‘royal, multi-faceted provision” (HCJ 1683/93 Yachin Plast v. National Labor Court, IsrSC 47(4) 702, 708 (1993) (per Barak J.) which casts its net over the different areas of law (CA 2070/06 Equipment and Construction Infrastructures Ltd. and Others v. Attorney Yaakov Greenwald – Receiver (2008)). The principle of good faith is a flexible legal rule, and the court may fill it with content and meaning, and determine whether any particular act deviates from it or complies with it (CA 467/04 Yitach v. Mifal Hapayis (2004)). In this regard, President Barak’s well-known statement in (CA 6339/97 Rocker v. Solomon, IsrSC 55(1), 199 (1999) is apt: “The principle of good faith establishes a standard for the behavior of people who are each concerned with their own interests. The principle of good faith holds that protecting one’s own interest must be fair, and considerate of the justified expectations and proper reliance of the other party. Person-to-person, one cannot behave like a wolf, but one is not required to be an angel. Person-to-person, one must act like a person” (at 279).

5.In CA 10582/02 Ben Abu v. Hamadia Doors Ltd., (2005) (hereinafter: the Hamadia Doors case) I was presented with the opportunity to address the moral aspect of the principle of good faith:

I will admit without shame that, in my view, the subject of good faith crystallizes moral principles into the law. As Justice (emeritus) Professor Itzhak Englard said in his lecture The Principle of Good Faith in Israeli Civil Law: “There is basis for the view that the aspiration for comprehensive application of the principle of good faith is also based on the desire to incorporate moral values into human relations, including in the commercial field” (lecture in a judges’ conference in Paris, June 2004, p. 2)… in CA 1662/99 Haim v. Haim, IsrSC 56(6) 295, 340, Justice Strasberg-Cohen wrote that the “theoretical foundation for the doctrine of estopple, like the principle of good faith, is rooted in principles of decency and morality,” and she quoted Professor G. Shalev (Promise, Estopple, and Good Faith, 15 Mihspatim 295, 313 (1989))… I cannot but concur with these words of truth, and under section 61(2) of the Contracts Law, they extend over the entirety of private law…” (para. 15).

It should be added that “good faith” is not a common term in Jewish law (although linguistically, the origin of the term “good faith” [tom lev] is in the language of the Bible – “In the integrity of my heart [tom lev] and clean hands” (Genesis 20:5)). In his paper Comments on the Draft Civil Code, 5771-2010, in light of Jewish Law (2011) [Hebrew], Dr. M. Wigoda explains that our Sages recognized three other principles that reflect different aspects of the principle of good faith: “Do what is right and good”, “one is compelled not to act in the manner of Sodom" (one is compelled not to abuse a legal right), and the rule of “lacking faith” (originally this phrase referred to reneging on a promise, and later referred more broadly to reprehensible conduct due to a moral flaw, as opposed to breeching an explicit lawful duty); see also Moshe Silberg, Such is the Way of the Talmud (1964) (chapter 7, pp. 97ff.) [Hebrew]). Dr. Wigoda explains that: “these rules are perceived both as general standards that create certain duties, and as principles that control the entirety private law” (pp. 4-5.) Additionally, according to the commentator to Maimonides’ Mishne Torah, Rabbi Vidal of Tolosa (Spain, 14^th century) (Laws concerning Neighbors 14:5): “And thus [the Torah] said, and you shall do the good and righteous, meaning that one must conduct well and honestly with people, and it was not proper in this matter to command details as the Torah’s commandments are eternal and for all time and apply to every matter and issue,  and one is obligated to do so, but the attributes and conduct of people change with the times and the people. The Sages wrote some useful details under these rules, some are absolute rules and some preferred and ways of piety, and this is all said by them.” See also the Hamadia Doors case (para. 16), particularly as to how the principle of good faith is reflected in the principle “what is hateful to you do not do to others,” and as Hillel the Elder said “this is the entire Torah, and  the rest is commentary, go study” (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a); and also see there one of the questions by which a person is judged by the heavenly court – “did you deal faithfully?” To summarize, good faith is a central legal and moral principle that must interpreted and applied according to the circumstances of the case, and must not be forgotten.

6.In CA 32/81 Tzonen v. Stahl, IsrSC 37(2) 761 (1983) then Justice M. Elon first applied the principle of good faith to spousal support obligations: “Although it is a statutory obligation, it has a contractual nature and it is rooted in the marital relationship, which is itself – by nature and at its core – a contractual relationship” (at 771). In LFA 3148/07 A v. B (2007) (hereinafter: LFA 3148/07) in which the Applicant petitioned to increase her support due to the improvement in her partner’s financial circumstances, I noted:

As a general rule, the court must consider not only whether a change in support should be considered under personal status law, but also how awarding increased support as requested would influence the entirety of the relationship, for better or for worse, and particularly whether it is requested in good faith. In our case, therefore, there is no reason to intervene in the decisions of the lower courts, which addressed the entirety of the relationship between the parties… [para. 6(4)) (emphasis added – E.R.)].

It should be noted that LFA 3148/07 concerned a decision not to increase spousal support, whereas our case concerns revoking it, and see my colleague’s comments in paragraph 44. Put simply, in these situations the court must exercise exponentially more caution on a legal and the human level. And yet, I believe our words are apt in these situations as well.

7.Considering the principles of personal status law under which a woman may be denied her right to support, the family courts have reached the conclusion, under general civil-law principle of good faith, that even if the personal status law obligates the husband to continue supporting his wife, in the case of a long separation and a marriage that has effectively ended (“a marriage on paper”) it may be appropriate to relieve the husband of the obligation to pay support. The family courts did so where they were satisfied that the woman’s objection to the divorce stemmed from her interest in support, and believed it was a “ruse”:

To summarize things thus far – only when we are concerned with a long separation will the court carefully consider the matter before it from all angles, and scrutinize its circumstances and root causes. This examination is broad, comprehensive, and multifaceted. However, the court will not easily stray from the primary duty that Jewish law imposes on the husband to pay his wife’s support, and make recourse to the possibilities for relieving him of that fundamental responsibility. The court will also consider who is to blame for the separation, whether there is a real chance for reconciliation between the parties, whether the Rabbinical Court required a divorce or merely recommended it, whether the Rabbinical Court ruled as to reconciliation, who is refusing the divorce and whether this refusal is merited, whether all the property issues between the parties have been resolved, and other factors. After the court has gathered the relevant facts, it must attempt to examine them through two lenses, one is the lens of the essence of the law as it is reflected in halakhic decisions and its interpretation under the civil law, and the other, that of the heart of the law, that is, the principle of good faith, a principle which can take the sting out of the law and reconcile it with logic and common sense… [FC (Fam. Petach Tikva) 51689-11-12, I.L. v. E.L. (2013) para. 28) (Judge Weizman); see also FC (Krayot) 11495-11-08, A v. B (2010); FA 765/05 (Jlem) A v. B et al.  (2006) and many others].

And also see that decision in regard to the need to strike a balance between  personal status law and “applying moral norms stemming from the principle of good faith, which also have a place in Jewish law” (para. 18).

Clearly, the principle of good faith, which covers all areas of life and applies to relationships between strangers in one-time contractual relations, certainly holds an important place when two individuals who decided to join their lives together wish to end their relationship. I believe that a different conclusion would lead the Family Court to do a disservice to this area of the law, by encouraging the continuation of a marriage that has ebbed, by the artificial means of continuing spousal support in a case of “a marriage on paper.”

8.However, this reflects one – fundamental -- aspect of the problem. Of course, I am aware that in many cases the woman is left without a source of income after the marriage ends (R. Halperin Kaddari, Wife Support: From Perception of Difference to Perception of [In]Equality, 7 ebrew))and of the concern about the consequences of the end of the marriage for the woman’s entitlement to support when she has not worked outside the home during the marriage – and I would emphasize: did not work outside of the home, as the common term “did not work” does an injustice to a woman who worked, sometimes to exhaustion, in performing household tasks – increases when the division of property between the couple is yet to be completed. These situations were common in past generations, and even though today there are very many couples where both partners work outside the home for purposes of income and for purposes of self-fulfillment, there are still couples, as in our case, where the woman did not work outside of the home for years, or hardly did so, and often, even when she did work, it was limited and her professional advancement was hindered due to the demands of child raising. Nevertheless, it is hard to accept denying the Family Court the option of encouraging the parties to negotiate, with its understanding of the complex dynamics of life, and its practical experience with cases of the sort (to complete the picture regarding the background for get recalcitrance by a man, and Jewish law’s solutions, see: HCJ 6751/04 M. S. v. Great Rabbinical Court of Appeals, IsrSC 59(4) 817 (2004) and the amendment to the Rabbinical Courts Jurisdiction (Marriage and Divorce) Law, 5713-1953 (Amendment 1 of Section 11 of the Rabbinical Courts (Enforcement of Divorce Judgments) (Temporary Provision) Law, 5755-1995, as well as Yehiel S. Kaplan, Punitive Maintenance as a Solution to the Plight of the Wife of the Recalcitrant Husband, 10 381 (2005)). The solution to the difficulty my colleague describes, which I do not take lightly at all, is provided by the law in the authority granted the court under section 8(2) of the Spouses (Property Relations) Law, 5733-1973, to make an unequal division of assets, along with the additional powers it provides. This is expressed in the Explanatory Notes to the Spouses (Property Relations) (Amendment 4) Law, 5769-2008:

Section 8 of the Law establishes that under special circumstances that justify it, the competent court may decide that the balancing of the assets of the partners will not be carried out by means of an equal division between them, but according to a different equation. It is proposed to make clear that in determining such  a division, the competent court also factor the future assets of each of the partners (such as goodwill, professional degrees, professional experience, and workplace tenure) and the income prospects of each of them (section 5(2)). In western countries, there is a growing trend in legislation and jurisprudence of considering the financial gaps between the spouses in proceedings for the division of community assets, inter alia, when awarding one-time or periodic compensation to the weaker partner. Often, these gaps are a result of one partner forgoing their professional development and the consequent income prospects in order to allow the other partner to do so (see Shahar Lifshitz, On Past Assets and Future Assets and the Philosophy of Marital Property, 34(3) Mishpatim 627 (2005), primarily p. 728ff. (Hebrew)) [(emphasis added – E.R.) (Spouses (Property Relations) (Amendment 4) (Earlier Balancing of Assets), 5767-2007, H.H. 163)].

Moreover, the current state of the law allows partners who did not earn an income – mostly women – to share the pension that their partner receives upon retirement, as in this case, which has great significance.

It should be noted that in our matter, the court (FC 24358-08-11 and FC 33489-03-12) did not find it appropriate to rule in that manner, despite the Applicant’s request, for its own reasons. I shall address the issue of rehabilitative support below.

9.My colleague further explains in her opinion that it is inappropriate for the court to consider the matter of get recalcitrance, which is given to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rabbinical Court. She emphasizes – and this is undisputed – that the situation must be must be viewed from the perspective of the principle of comity between courts, and that it is difficult to accept that in a situation in which the Rabbinical Court believes that the reconciliation claim by the party who does not wish to divorce still stands and that ordering a get would be inappropriate, the Family Court should rule otherwise. The principle of comity is undisputedly a central principle of our system (HCJ 8578/01 Haliva v. Haliva, IsrSC 56(5) 634 (2002)), and the civil courts are scrupulous in that regard, and we need not address the complex questions of res judicata. I am the last to take comity between courts lightly. However, the rabbinical courts  have halakhic concerns regarding the matter of a get, which is an extremely complex subject (“Rabbi Judah said in Samuel’s name: One who does not know the peculiar nature of divorce and betrothal should have no business with them” (a, and they should, of course, be respected. But the civil court sees a broader picture in the financial matters. The Family Court has jurisdiction over issues of support, and it is required to adjudicate under personal status law. It is only logical that in that framework, weight will be given to the general principles of the civil law, as well. Moreover, the courts are often called upon to make incidental rulings that are necessary for deciding upon the support issue (section 76 of the Courts Law (Consolidated Version), 5744-1984). It should be further noted, and this may be the main point, that a finding as to the lack of likelihood for reconciliation (“the death of the marriage”) does not imply a halakhic obligation to divorce, and the lack of a divorce obligation does not mean there was good faith. The possibility for reconciliation, or the lack thereof, is determined by examining the entirety of the relationship between the parties over the years, as we can also see in our matter (see the decision of the Rabbinical Court (Rabbinical Court Judges Rabbi Domb, Rabbi HaLevi, and Rabbi Zer) of October 14, 2013, where the court noted that “it seems the Respondent’s goal is that she have a whole house rather than a peaceful home”). Indeed, the Family Court handed down its decision on December 12, 2012, about ten months before the Rabbinical Court’s decision, and at the Applicant’s request, the Rabbinical Court initially attempted, as is usually the case, to explore the possibility of reconciliation.

10.My colleague reminds us (in para. 36) that, in cases in which the Rabbinical Court has orders a get, revoking the right to support  may be accompanied by supplementary steps such as entrusting the get and the ketubah amount to a third party. The issue of entrusting the get is generally relevant in the case of a recalcitrant husband, while the matter of the ketubah is, of course, highly relevant to the general proceedings as to property. My colleague ably reviewed the halakhic literature on the topic of “the death of the marriage.” In my view, the question before us is whether to maintain the moribund marriage  through “artificial respiration” merely because of the property dispute. In general, I do not believe that the doors of the family courts are barred when the Rabbinical Court, for its own considerations, has yet to rule on ordering a get, while the Family Court is persuaded there are no prospects for the marriage, although appropriate caution should be exercised. The Family Court holds jurisdiction over the subject of  support, and in considering the overall picture, there is no reason for it not to see the couple as it truly is, where the get is clearly serving as a “property weapon”.

11.In this case, under the circumstances described – and given that the lower courts, including the Rabbinical Court, were, in fact, under the impression that the marriage had reached its end and that the Applicant was delaying the divorce in order to improve her financial situation – I am of the opinion that the Family Court was correct in its decision, as was the District Court, to award support for a fixed period of time. Therefore, the approach of the District Court, which took further steps to accommodate the Applicant, is acceptable to me.

Rehabilitative Support

12.My colleague proposes awarding rehabilitative support in cases where the partner is no longer entitled to support under personal status law, and this at two possible points in time: “either before the divorce is granted but when there is a cause for denying support, or after the divorce is granted, thus ending the right to support” (para. 50). I am not certain whether the term “rehabilitative support” is appropriate, and perhaps “bridging support” is preferable where the support is meant to bridge the period remaining until retirement. This mechanism is primarily rooted in the desire to assist the partner (in the majority of cases, the woman) when she lacks independent sources of income, and where there is reliance on the partnered relationship. I agree with my colleague’s holding that “in appropriate cases, where a woman is divorced after years of not working outside of the home, she should be entitled to ‘civil’ support with a rehabilitative objective, that is ‘rehabilitative’ support according to general principles of the civil law.” (para. 47); this on a case by case basis, including examining the partner’s possibility to integrate back into the workforce, and the entire property arrangement between the couple.

13.The basis for awarding rehabilitative support where they were not agreed upon in advance is, as my colleague noted, as well, also to be found in the principle of good faith, which attributes to the couple a normative intent as to support (LCA 8256/99 A v. B, IsrSC 58 (2) 213 (2003)). In appropriate cases, I believe that this is even consistent with the spirit of section 8 of the Spouses (Property Relations) Law, which – as noted – seeks to grant the court flexibility in balancing resources and to deviate from the principle of equal distribution prescribed by the law. This can be seen, in my view, as an attempt to achieve “real equality” as opposed to “formal equality.” Indeed, when we are concerned with “rehabilitative support” we are not concerned with a permanent entitlement to support, but rather with an entitlement designed at rehabilitation until another entitlement to income materializes, while considering the factors of good faith and fairness in this regard, as well.

14.In addition to the cases referred to by my colleague in regard to partners who are not “regulated” by religious law, the family courts have, on more than one occasion, awarded rehabilitative support to partners married in accordance with Jewish law. For example, in FC (Haifa) 7282-12-09 A v. B (2011), support was awarded after the couples’ divorce (before the issue of the community property and its division was decided) in light of the woman’s financial dependence on her partner after 28 years of marriage, during 16 years of which she managed the household. Also see FC (Krayot) 11495-11-08, mentioned above, where it was held that the right to support would be for a fixed time in light of the principle of good faith and in order not to perpetuate a “marriage on paper”. It was held that should the parties divorce beforehand (thus prima facie extinguishing the obligation for support under personal status law), the woman would be awarded rehabilitative support. In practice, this mechanism facilitates a divorce where the relationship has died, while granting the woman support for an additional period of time. To a certain extent, it could be said that we are concerned with semantics, that is, with a formula designed not to cause friction with the Rabbinical Court, but its goal is to achieve the same material outcome that the lower courts reached in our case, although by a different path.

15.I do not rule out this manner of awarding support in appropriate cases, however, in my opinion, it is a tool in the Family Court’s “toolbox” that should be used in accordance with the circumstances, in order to solve the matter of alternative income. However, I fear this method does not always solve the cases of “dragging out” a moribund marriage by artificial means, in order to achieve economic advantages, and I am not certain that it leads to more attempts to integrate into the workforce than before.

16.It would not be superfluous to note that support under the personal status law is clearly to be paid when the husband is the recalcitrant spouse, and further discussion of this matter would, indeed, be superfluous.

17.And now to the case before us. With all due respect, I disagree with my colleague’s statement in paragraph 63. At the end of the day, once I have not seen fit to bar the way to the civil courts considering the “clinical death” of the marriage, I see no flaw in the position of the lower courts here, including the District Court’s fixing of support for a relatively extended period of time. It is entirely possible that the District Court’s ruling is what prompted reaching a decision as to the property.

18.In concluding,  I would note that I will not address the issue of tort claims in cases of recalcitrance, which raise significant questions (FA (Tel Aviv) 46631-05-11 A v. B (2014); FC (Jlem) 1748/06 A v. B (2011); FC (Jlem) 6743/02 K. v. K. (2008)), though I, with all due respect, and with proper concern for the issue of a “coerced get” [get me’useh], which is often at the basis of such disputes (due to the fear that the husband’s consent to the divorce was a result out of concern about tort damages rather than his free will), believe the path to compensation should not be barred. In this context, also see the Professor A. Radzyner’s enlightening article,  “The Essential Thing is not the Study, but the Deed”: Get Procedures after Tort Claims and the Policy Respecting Publication of Rabbinical Court Judgments, 44(1) M  5 (2105). It should be noted that, according to this article, a get can be granted even after compensation is paid. I believe that a decision to revoke support is no more harsh than a decision finding that a  recalcitrant husband is a tortfeasor and a nuisance, and liable for compensation.

19.In closing, I think it appropriate to briefly address my colleague Justice Erez-Barak’s response. I fear that I do not agree with presenting the matter as a binary dichotomy between the jurisdiction of the Rabbinical Court in matters of divorce and the jurisdiction of the Family Court in matters of property. The Family Court, in adjudicating matters of property, which are undisputedly within his primary jurisdiction by default, sees the picture before it in the matter within its jurisdiction (that is, matters of property) and must render judgment. It does not consider factors of halakha, and does not end the marriage in the halakhic sense. However, it is not required to grant one of the partners, be it the husband or the wife, a perpetual key. Surely, my colleague has no intention of presenting the Family Court or the District Court as insensitive to distress of the male or female partner who has no source of income, or to the rights of women. And indeed, this is not the case in general, nor is it the case before us. The Family Court, like the District Court, as fair courts, will know how to navigate in the appropriate cases, and properly examine good faith in matters of property before reaching a decision. The Rabbinical Court’s jurisdiction stands and is respected. Finally, as for the comments by my colleague Justice Zylbertal, I believe his concern as to the possibility of filing tort claims for get recalcitrance, which he wishes to put at center stage, should not be taken lightly. His reasons for disputing our colleague Justice Barak-Erez’s distinction between suits for fixing periods of support for recalcitrance and tort suits for recalcitrance are essentially acceptable to me.

20.In conclusion, in light of the above, should my opinion be heard, the District Court’s decision would be upheld, and support would be paid until the date set. At the end of that period, it will be possible to reexamine the situation between the parties, and whether there might be any justification for rehabilitative support on the basis of a new request.

21.After reviewing the opinion of my colleague Justice Zylbertal, and having been left in the minority as to the operative outcome, I would suggest that, at the end of the day, the gap between my colleagues’ positions as to the outcome and my own is not so wide. My colleague Justice Barak-Erez proposes that the Respondent continue to pay the Applicant’s support as decided by the Family Court, without determining a termination date, whereas, in my opinion, the situation ought to be revisited at the end of such period – this coming December of 2015, when the possibility for extending the period of support may be considered. In any case, as my colleagues are in the majority in this matter, the operative outcome is according to the opinion of my colleague Justice Barak-Erez.

Justice Z. Zylbertal:

1.I have carefully read the compressive, thorough opinions of my colleagues Justice D. Barak-Erez and Deputy President E. Rubinstein. I will begin by stating that in the disagreement between my colleagues, I concur with the outcome arrived at by Justice Barak-Erez, whereby the appeal should be granted as set out in paragraph 65 of her opinion. Nevertheless, as will be explained below, I cannot concur with all the principled findings that led my colleague to that outcome, and I concur with the opinion of the Deputy President on the main point of dispute between my colleagues.

2.The discussion here may be divided into two primary issues: the first, on which my colleagues are divided, is the question of jurisdiction (or, at least, how it is exercised). Is the Family Court permitted to revoke a woman’s support without a prior decision by the Rabbinical Court requiring that she accept a get, and without a positive finding that the couple’s marriage has come to an end? My colleague Justice Barak-Erez’s position is that the principle of comity between courts calls for restraint by the civil court, and therefore, in her opinion, as long as the divorce proceedings are pending in the Rabbinical Court, the civil court cannot base rulings as to the issue of support on “recalcitrance” in regard to the get in the absence of an appropriate finding by the Rabbinical Court on this issue. Justice Barak-Erez added that this conclusion results not only from the principle of comity between courts, but also from the Jewish religious law that applies in our case, according to which revoking a right to support in a case where a get has been ordered must (in the opinion of many) be followed  by supplementary steps that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rabbinical Court, and that require the active involvement of the Rabbinical Court (entrusting the get and the ketubah amount to a third party.)

The Deputy President disputes Justice Barak-Erez’s position on the matter of jurisdiction. His position is that the civil courts may revoke a married woman’s support when they are satisfied that the marriage has effectively ended and that the woman refuses to accept her get only for financial reasons, even in the absence of a finding by the Rabbinical Court that the woman is required to accept the get. The Deputy President explained that the civil court often makes incidental findings that are required for determining the issue of support and the property matters under its primary jurisdiction (section 76 of the Courts Law [Consolidated Version], 5744-1984). In the Deputy President’s view, the civil court’s finding that a woman must lose her support because she is a “recalcitrant spouse” does not lead to the end of the marriage in the halakhic sense, and does not deviate from the principle of comity between courts.

3.My colleagues’ positions are well reasoned and internally consistent, and each expresses important (sometimes conflicting) principles that are necessary for a functioning legal system. Still, my position is that a broader perspective as to the unfortunate phenomenon of “get recalcitrance” tips the scale in favor of the Deputy President’s position, and thus, on the fundamental issue in question, I join his opinion. I will explain my conclusion below.

4.Both the Deputy President and Justice Bark-Erez briefly discussed an issue that is tangential to ours – the possibility of being awarded monetary compensation in cases of get recalcitrance through a tort suit (see paras. 56-59 of Justice Barak-Erez’s opinion, and para. 18 of the Deputy President’s opinion.) Indeed, in recent years, various legal and halakhic means have been explored in order to contend with the harsh phenomenon of get recalcitrance, including the option of filing a tort claim against the recalcitrant party. In this context, Justice Barak-Erez’s position on the jurisdiction issue, as presented above, may – by a possible analogy – lead to the outcome that it will not be possible to award tort damages against a recalcitrant spouse in the absence of a positive finding by the Rabbinical Court  requiring the husband to deliver a get. Justice Barak-Erez considered this possibility in noting:

In my opinion, this analogy is not at all obvious and I believe it is misplaced… There are several reasons for distinguishing the two types of suits, as I shall explain below.

In my opinion, the primary reason for distinguishing between the cases is that the right to support ordinarily concerns the ongoing maintenance of the woman entitled to support…A decision to revoke entitlement to support is an extreme act when compared to awarding compensation for get recalcitrance…Another, more formal but not unimportant, reason for the distinction derives from the fact that tort suits for divorce refusal are adjudicated exclusively under civil law, in accordance with the tests of the tort of negligence, and in any event, the matter is given to the exclusive jurisdiction of the civil courts. On the other hand, determining issues of support is contingent on the marital relationship and draws upon religious law.

5.With all due respect, in my view, the distinction my colleague proposes is not problem free. I fear that her position may seal the fate of tort claims against recalcitrant spouses in the absence of appropriate findings by the Rabbinical Court, and this despite my colleague’s clarification that such an analogy is misplaced. Below, I will attempt to explain why I believe that such an analogy is possible, as well as the problems posed by the reasons for distinguishing between the two claims that my colleague addressed, and why, in my opinion, such a distinction is inappropriate.

At the end of the day, both in regard to tort claims and support claims, the civil court will be called upon to determine whether one of the partners is a “recalcitrant spouse.” This issue, which goes directly to the issue of the state of the couple’s marriage, is subject, as noted in my colleague’s opinion, to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rabbinical Court. It can be further assumed that when a support suit (as in our case) or a tort claim for get recalcitrance is filed in the civil court, a parallel  divorce proceeding is pending in the Rabbinical Court, such that the principle of comity between courts applies equally to both types of claims. Therefore, it is not impossible that establishing my colleague Justice Barak-Erez’s position as binding precedent whereby the civil court may not determine that the woman is a “recalcitrant spouse” in the absence of a finding to that effect by the Rabbinical Court would, in practice – and without persuasive reasons for distinguishing the two types of claims – lead to an analogous conclusion with regard to tort claims for get recalcitrance. In other words, in the absence of a finding by the Rabbinical Court that the man is required to issue a get, it will be impossible for the civil court to find that the husband is recalcitrant and order that he pay compensation in a tort action. In this context it should be emphasized that rabbinical courts are very cautious, for their own reasons, in regard to ordering a man to deliver a get, and it often takes many years from the beginning of the conflict and the filing of the divorce suit until the Rabbinical Court orders that the issuance of a get is required. It should also be noted that the family courts, which have been hearing tort claims for get recalcitrance in recent years, vacillated on this issue, but it would appear that the prevailing approach allows them to grant such claims (under the tort of negligence) even in the absence of “get obligation” by the Rabbinical Court (see: FC (Jlem) 46459-07-12 Z. G. v. S. G. (August 17, 2014) para. 51). As noted, I fear that accepting my colleague’s approach, and its resulting application to the parallel case of tort claims against “recalcitrant spouses” as well, would lead to a change in the current state of the law regarding such claims, which is, in any event, somewhat vague, and will seriously undermine the possibility of employing one of the central tools for combating this wrongful phenomenon.

6.Justice Barak-Erez, who is aware of the possible ramifications of implementing her position in regard to tort claims for get recalcitrance, made it clear that she believes that the analogy above is misplaced, and even provided two reasons for her distinction between the types of claims. In doing so, my colleague attempts to alleviate the concern for the undesirable consequences of her position in the context of the general fight against the phenomenon of get recalcitrance to which I referred. However, as I will explain below, I do not believe that there is any real justification for the distinction proposed by my colleague. Moreover, I believe the proposed distinction may lead to a lack of coherence and legal consistency, and create different laws for recalcitrant husbands and recalcitrant wives. Therefore, I am unable to agree with my colleague’s fundamental position, as well as with the attempt to restrict that position so that it would apply only to limiting the periods for the payment of support in response to get recalcitrance, as opposed to tort claims in which the civil court must consider which of the parties is the recalcitrant spouse. I shall explain my position.

As noted, my colleague gave two reasons for a distinction between suits for limiting the period of support due to get recalcitrance and tort suits for get recalcitrance. The first and central reason is that a decision to revoke a woman’s support is a harsher act in comparison to awarding compensation for get recalcitrance. Therefore, as I understand it, her position is that the civil courts must not be granted authority to revoke a woman’s support without “speed bumps” of sorts, or threshold requirements, in the form of the Rabbinical Court’s order requiring the issuance of a get, because of the severe consequences of such a decision. On the other hand, as the argument goes, awarding compensation for get recalcitrance would not render the recalcitrant spouse impoverished or in a state of existential distress, and thus my colleague is willing to permit the civil courts to rule on this matter even without “speed bumps” or other moderating mechanisms. With all due respect, I cannot agree. Indeed, a decision to deny support to a woman who for years relied on her husband’s income may have a dramatic effect on her life and bring her to a state actual poverty. Therefore, my position is that clear rules must be established as to the circumstances under which it may be possible to revoke a “recalcitrant” woman’s support, so that reducing women to poverty will not be possible (see, for example, my position in regard to fixing the support of the Applicant at bar, below.) We must assume that the family courts will act responsibly in regard to the issue of revoking a woman’s support, and will rule in accordance with the guidelines that will be established in the case-law as to the circumstances in which a woman’s support may be revoked for being a “recalcitrant spouse.” I shall further comment that even under my colleague’s approach, revoking support from a “recalcitrant wife” would be possible after the Rabbinical Court orders her to accept a get, so that the harsh outcomes of revoking the support would not be fully prevented, but only delayed until after the Rabbinical Court hands down an appropriate decision. I do not see much point in this. A decision to deny a woman support for “recalcitrance”, whether it is given before the “get obligation” by the Rabbinical Court or after it, must, in any case, be made very carefully, with consideration for the reason for the recalcitrance, the woman’s prospects of supporting herself, and the understandings between the couple throughout the marriage (and on this – in detail – below). Therefore, I do not share my colleague’s position that the harsh consequences of revoking support of the recalcitrant spouse warrant a distinction between such a suit and a tort claim for recalcitrance. In my view, a finding whereby a civil court may revoke a woman’s support only after she is required to divorce by the Rabbinical Court is merely delaying the inevitable, but it does not offer a real solution for concerns about reducing the recalcitrant woman to a state of poverty. Below, as noted, I will discuss the considerations that the civil court must weigh before reaching a decision with such dramatic consequences, and this, I believe, would provide a real response to the concerns my colleague has raised.

The second reason my colleague mentioned for distinguishing between suits for denying a woman’s support and tort claims for “get recalcitrance” is based on the fact that tort claims are adjudicated exclusively under civil law, and that jurisdiction over them is granted only to the civil courts. As opposed to this, according to Justice Barak-Erez, ruling on the matter of support depends on the marital relationship and draws upon religious law. Here, too, I am not persuaded that the distinction my colleague proposes will indeed be possible, inasmuch as the tort cause of action – the get recalcitrance – is itself dependent upon religious obligations and norms stemming from the applicable religious law, and it may not be viewed as a classic, “pure” civil tort claim, as my colleague implies.

I would further add that the distinction proposed by my colleague between the two claims – that claims to revoke a woman’s right to support would require a positive finding of the Rabbinical Court requiring a get, but that such a finding would not be required in tort claims against a recalcitrant spouse – may be interpreted, and with some justification, as an improper distinction between the law applicable to recalcitrant husbands and the law applicable to recalcitrant wives.

7.In conclusion, though it is clear from my colleague’s opinion that, in her view, there is no place for an analogy between her general position on denying support and the tort claim for get recalcitrance, I believe that such an analogy is possible and even warranted, and I do not find it proper or possible to distinguish the two cases. Therefore, although this consideration is beyond the scope of this case, I saw fit to emphasize it and bring it to center stage as a primary consideration for joining the position of the Deputy President on the issue of jurisdiction. As stated, the fundamental positions of my colleagues are possible, in my view, in terms of their logic and the important values that each expresses. Therefore, in determining which of the two is preferable, and with a broad perspective as to their future ramifications, I find that Justice Barak-Erez’s position strikes a hard blow that significantly restricts the powers of the civil courts when dealing with the difficult phenomenon of get recalcitrance. Therefore, and as it is possible in our legal system, as extensively detailed in the Deputy President’s opinion, my position is that the civil courts are authorized, in principle, to revoke the support of a “recalcitrant woman”, even in the absence of an explicit ruling by the Rabbinical Court requiring her to accept a get. Therefore, as stated, my position on the issue of jurisdiction is as that of the Deputy President.

8.The second question that should be discussed after determining the matter of jurisdiction, is what considerations the court must contemplate before revoking a woman’s support due to “get recalcitrance”, and whether, under the circumstances of this case, fixing a time period for the Applicant’s support was proper.

Indeed, we must assume that leave for appeal on a “third incarnation” would not have been granted were this issue adjudicated on its own and independently from the jurisdiction question, because it seemingly does not raise an issue of public or general importance that goes beyond the matter of the direct parties to the proceedings (LCA 103/82 Haifa Parking Lot Ltd. v. Matzat Or (Hadar Haifa) Ltd., IsrSC 36(3) 123 (1982.)) Leave to appeal was granted in our case because of the public and general importance of the jurisdictional question, discussed above. Having concluded that the Family Court is authorized, in principle, to fix a time period for a woman’s support due to “get recalcitrance” even in the absence of a positive finding by the Rabbinical Court, the fundamental question that was the reason for granting leave to appeal is decided, and it is held that the lower courts’ ruling was within their competence. Therefore, we could have stopped here and upheld the District Court’s ruling without further intervention into the operative, concrete matter before us. This is the path that the Deputy President adopted in reaching the conclusion that support should be paid to the Applicant until the date set by the District Court (that is until December 31, 2015). The Deputy President added that, at the end of that period, it would be possible to reconsider the situation between the parties, and whether there is justification for awarding rehabilitative support on the basis of a new motion. On this point, my position diverges from that of the Deputy President. I believe that once leave for appeal was granted on the fundamental question, and once a comprehensive, in-depth discussion into the case at hand was conducted, the door is now open to consider the additional questions the case raises, including the matter of the actual application in the circumstances before us. Moreover, as will be explained below, this question, too, has fundamental, broad consequences that go beyond the particular matter of the parties (on the broad jurisdiction of appeals courts over family court decisions, see Chemi Ben Nun and Tal Havkin, The Civil Appeal 568-71 (3rd ed., 2012) (Hebrew)).

9.What, then, are the considerations the Family Court must consider when it is called upon to fix the period for support or revoke the support of a married woman merely because she is delaying the divorce and refusing to accept her get for financial reasons?

I have noted above that the phenomenon of get recalcitrance is wrong and severe. It exploits the get – which is a “ticket” out of a failed marriage – as a bargaining chip for extortion. Often male partners refuse to release their wives from a marriage in which they are no longer interested, and condition their consent on financial demands and compromises in which the women partners forgo their property rights. In my opinion, this wrongful and painful phenomenon requires that we find legal and halakhic tools that would respond to the plight of those who for many years (often – their fertility years) beg for the possibility to end a marital relationship which they do not wish to continue, and for the possibility to move on to a new relationship.

10.Though I present this phenomenon in a gender-based manner, clearly when the woman refuses to accept a get and allow the husband to end the marriage and go on with his life in order to compel him to forgo his property rights or for sheer vindictiveness, the matter is just as serious. Parenthetically, I would note that, nevertheless,  the distress of women who are refused a get is more extreme than that of men, primarily because a married woman may not start a new family with another man (that is “move on with her life” without a get) without her new children being considered mamzerim [bastards] in the eyes of Jewish halakha. Married men do not face this problem, and the may go on with their lives and raise new families without the having the cloud of halakhic “bastardy” hanging over the heads of their future children.

11.In light of all this, it is clear why, in appropriate cases, the Family Court must be allowed to deny incentives to recalcitrant men and women who act out of a lack of good faith (to put it mildly). However, in my opinion, the matter at hand is not among those cases, at least not obviously. We must distinguish between recalcitrance that is rooted in personal vindictiveness or extortion, and recalcitrance that is rooted in the absence of adequate financial protection for the financially weaker party in a divorce. It seems that when the support guaranteed to a woman who, as in our case, managed the household for decades and never integrated into the workforce or acquired a vocation or profession, is absolutely stopped upon divorce (without simultaneously providing a solution for her financial distress in the division of property), she must not be condemned for refusing to divorce due to her economic dependence on her husband. Surely, this is not analogous to the more difficult case of a “get recalcitrance” which, as noted, involves extortion and vindictiveness (Shahar Lifshitz, Family and Property Relations: Challenges and Tasks subsequent to the 4th Amendment of the Property Relations Law, 1 Hebrew)and see the references there; and also see the end of section 5A(d) of the Spouses (Property Relations) Law which mandates that “the refusal of the applicant [for balancing resources – Z. Z.] to waive rights to which they or their children are entitled by law, shall not be deemed an absence of good faith”).

12.Indeed, there are currently many legal tools designed to contend with the financial distress of the “home-based” partner and the inequality in the ability of partners to produce income when the division of labor during the marriage was the “traditional division.” A significant number of these tools were mentioned, in one way or another, in the opinions of my colleagues, as well. These include, for example, “rehabilitative civil-support,” which was discussed at length in the opinion of Justice Barak-Erez, as well as the possibilities for an unequal balancing of resources, for division of human capital and resources, and compensation for career losses. Indeed, as a general rule, the court adjudicating the end of the couple’s marriage has a full “toolbox” that is meant to bring about a just outcome, as well as  the economic protection of the “home-based” partner after the divorce.

13.Sadly (and this is regretfully typical of proceedings between partners due to the split jurisdictions in the area), the picture before us at this point is only very partial and limited. The full picture of the couple’s assets and its division has not been presented to us, and the parties did not present arguments on the issue of balancing the assets between them or the division of non-monetary assets such as human capital or career assets. Although the Family Court did decide on the issue of the division of assets between the couple (and denied the woman’s request for an unequal division in her favor), the Applicant informed the Court that she intended to appeal that decision (and we were not informed as to whether any appeal was actually filed). In any event, there is not doubt that in the absence of many relevant details as to the Applicant’s ability to maintain herself after the divorce, it is extremely difficult to reach a just outcome on the matter of support in and of itself. That being the case, and although we are unable to “complete the task”, neither are we free to absolve ourselves of it [ 2:16]. We must, despite our  frustration, determine only the issue before us solely on the basis of the facts and arguments of which we are aware.

14.Before us is a couple that, until the dispute between them erupted, were married for about thirty-five years, raised three children, and lived a shared, full life together that included shared vacations and a warm relationship (see para. 31 of the District Court’s decision). Over the course of  the marriage, the Applicant hardly worked outside of the home, and she is currently over fifty years old. In other words, during all of her adult life, the Applicant relied on the income of the Respondent, her husband, and did not acquire a profession or professional experience through gainful employment. It is therefore understandable why, when the dispute between the couple began, the Applicant became concerned about the implications of a future divorce for her financial circumstances and daily survival, and why she filed a suit for support. Similarly, it is understandable that as long as the entirety of the couple’s financial relationship and division of property has not been settled, and lacking any secure, stable source of income, the Applicant refused to divorce and forgo the support to which she is lawfully entitled. Thus, I do not find that the Applicant’s delay of the divorce necessarily proceeds from  extortion or vindictiveness, and it is entirely possible that the refusal to divorce before a final determination as to the division of the property between the couple derives from a concern over coming out of the divorce process having lost everything and without financial support.

To all the above we must add the fact that the Respondent is expected to retire relatively shortly (and in any event, in the next few years), and there is no dispute that the Applicant will be entitled to pension rights accumulated until the time of the rift. In other words, effectively the matter of the Applicant’s entitlement to support concerns only a short period of time, which is a “transitional period” of sorts, until the Respondent retires and she receives her share in his pension rights.

15.This being the case, my position is that, under the circumstances of the case, in light of the Applicant’s age (which is not very far from retirement age) and her limited prospects of integrating into the workforce, gaining experience and earning a satisfactory income during the short time left until the Respondent’s retirement,  setting a fixed period for her support would not be appropriate. The District Court noted that one of the rationales for fixing the term of support was to allow the Applicant a reasonable amount of time to prepare for her future. However, as my colleague Justice Barak-Erez noted, in applying that principle the lower court did not explain to what extent the term it set (about three years from the date of the Family Court’s decision) is supposed to serve the woman’s ability to produce an income when that term comes to its end.

We must bear in mind that requiring the Applicant to go out and attempt to integrate into the workforce may be an excessive burden in view of the short period of time she would be able to work before both parties reach the age of retirement. Above all, and this must be emphasized, after many years of common effort in maximizing the couple’s assets (including, the Respondent’s ability to produce an income), it would be unjust  that the Applicant be the one to bear the primary financial costs of the divorce, and it would be unfair that her quality of life and financial security be compromised while the Respondent continues to enjoy a high salary and the lifestyle to which he has been accustomed. Requiring a woman in her fifties to integrate into the workforce within three years (for any job?  for any pay?) only because her husband decided that he wishes to end the marriage between them is unreasonable. And it should further be emphasized that the Respondent’s decision to divorce the Applicant is a legitimate decision, in and of itself, but it does not allow shirking the responsibility stemming from decades of understandings that led to the current state of affairs. Therefore, my position is that, in the case at hand, the term of the Applicant’s support must not be fixed as long as she does not receive her share in the Respondent’s pension rights.

16.As noted, this finding relies upon an incomplete picture of the facts and data related to the division of property between the couple. Therefore we should make it clear that this determination would not permit the Applicant to “double dip”. If it be decided in any of the other proceedings conducted between the partners that she is entitled to any periodic payments that represent her share in the Respondent’s monthly salary (in the form of civil support, an unequal division of resources, career assets, and the like), it will be appropriate to set off the payment of support, which is designed to realize the very same goal.

17.In light of the above, we would again make it clear that there may indeed be cases in which the civil court would be authorized to fix a woman’s support for a set period, even in the case of a woman who did not work outside the home for many years. For example, a woman facing a long period of time until the age of retirement may acquire a profession, gain experience and stand on her own two feet financially within a reasonable adjustment period (the length of which would depend on the concrete circumstances). During the adjustment period, the woman would be entitled to her support (or to a similar amount through one of the other legal tools at the court’s disposal), until she realizes her income potential. There is also great significance to the nature of the relationship during the years of marriage, and primarily to the question of whether the man encouraged his wife to manage the household and thus forgo acquiring a profession or higher education, or whether he did all he could to facilitate her personal and professional development, and it was she, contrary to his wishes, who chose to stay at home. These considerations are relevant and must be taken into account by the Family Court when adjudicating a request to fix the period of support for a woman who has no independent sources of income.

18.Before concluding I would emphasize that I am not ignoring the concern that a decision not to set a fixed time for the Applicant’s support may become an incentive for her, and for other woman under similar circumstances, to continue to refuse to divorce. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the fact that negotiations between the parties over a future settlement are not conducted in a vacuum. The parties know that if they do not arrive at an agreement, the compulsory arrangement the court will establish will be in accordance with the relevant legal rules. Therefore, it may be assumed that husbands – like the Respondent in our case – who foresee a high probability of being obligated to pay their wives’ support (or another financial obligation that would reflect the future support of their wives through one of the other possible legal tools) would conduct the negotiations over the division of property accordingly. To the extent that the negotiations for a settlement between the couple would include a proposal for periodic or fixed payment of equivalent value to the woman’s support payments, and the woman would still maintain her refusal to divorce as an  extortionist or vindictive tactic, the court may take this into consideration and fix the period of her support, and thus somewhat mitigate the concern over incentivizing wrongful refusal.

19.In conclusion, on the fundamental question at issue in this application for leave to appeal, I concur with the position of the Deputy President: the family courts may fix the term of support for a woman by reason of get recalcitrance, even in the absence of an order by the Rabbinical Court requiring a get.

However, my position is that under the circumstances of the case at hand, fixing period of the Applicant’s support would not be appropriate, both because her delay of the get in not necessarily a result of wrongful vindictiveness or extortion, that is, we are not concerned with a lack of good faith that would justify setting a time limit for support, and in light of the understandings that characterized the couple’s marriage, the Applicant’s age and her prospects for integrating into the workforce during the short adjustment period left until the partners reach the age of retirement. Therefore, under the circumstances of this application for leave to appeal, I concur with the operational outcome of my colleague Justice Barak-Erez, as detailed in paragraph 65 of her opinion. The case is remanded to the Family Court to rule on the matter of support in accordance with the Rabbinical Court’s updated decision and in accordance with the considerations outlined above. Until a further decision by the Family Court, the Respondent shall continue to pay the Applicant her support as decided, without fixing a date for the termination of payment.

The Appeal is granted in regard to the operative outcome, as stated in paragraph 65 of the opinion of Justice D. Barak-Erez. The Respondent will bear the Applicant’s costs in the amount of NIS 20,000.

Given this 23^rd day of Heshvan 5776 (November 5, 2015)

Ruth Nahmani v

1.            Daniel Nahmani

2.            Attorney-General

3.            Assuta Ltd

CFH 2401/95

The Supreme Court sitting as the Court of Civil Appeals [12 September 1996]

Before President A. Barak and Justices G. Bach, E. Goldberg, T. Or,

E.            Mazza, Y. Kedmi, I. Zamir, T. Strasberg-Cohen, D. Dorner, Ts. E. Tal,

Y. Türkel

Further Hearing of Civil Appeal 5587/93 on the judgment of the Haifa District Court (Justice H. Ariel) on 2 September 1993 in OM 599/92.

Facts: Ruth and Daniel Nahmani, a married couple, were unable to have a child because of an operation that Ruth underwent. They therefore decided to try in-vitro fertilization of Ruth‟s ova with Daniel‟s sperm, with a view to implanting the fertilized ova in a surrogate mother. Under Israeli law, surrogacy was not permitted and in-vitro fertilization was only permitted for implantation in the woman from whom the ova were taken. Because of the great expense of the in-vitro fertilization procedure in the United States, the couple petitioned the Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, to allow the in-vitro fertilization procedure to be conducted in Israel, for the purpose of surrogacy in the United States. In that proceeding (HCJ 1237/91), a consent judgment was given allowing the in-vitro fertilization procedure to be done in Israel. The procedure was carried out at Assuta Hospital.

Subsequently, Daniel left Ruth and went to live with another woman, who bore him a child. Ruth applied to Assuta Hospital to release the fertilized ova into her possession for the purpose of the surrogacy procedure in the United States, but Daniel opposed this. Assuta Hospital therefore refused to release the fertilized ova. Ruth applied to the Haifa District Court for an order against the hospital to release the fertilized ova, and in its judgment the District Court gave such an order.

Daniel appealed the judgment of the District Court to the Supreme Court. In the appeal (CA 5587/93), the Supreme Court, with a majority of four of the five justices

that heard the case, allowed the appeal of Daniel Nahmani and reversed the order of the District Court.

Ruth petitioned the Supreme Court to hold a further hearing of the appeal, and this further hearing was subsequently held before a panel of eleven justices.

Held: A majority of seven of the Supreme Court justices reversed the judgment in the appeal, with four justices dissenting.

(Majority opinion — Justice Ts. E. Tal) The husband was estopped from opposing the continuation of procedure by promissory estoppel, since he gave his consent, his wife reasonably relied on this consent, and she did so irreversibly, by fertilizing her ova with her husband‟s sperm. Furthermore, Jewish heritage, which is one of the fundamental principles of the Israeli legal system, considers having children an important value, whereas not having children is not considered a value at all.

(Majority opinion — Justice D. Dorner) The liberty of not having unwanted children is in essence secondary compared to the right to have children. Subject to this principle, the balancing between the rights of the parties is made by taking into account the current stage of the procedure, the representations made by the spouses, the expectations raised by the representations and any reliance on them, and the alternatives that exist for realizing the right of parenthood. In this case, the basic principles and considerations lead to a preference of the wife to be a parent over the right of the husband not to be a parent.

(Majority opinion — Justice E. Goldberg) In the absence of any normative arrangement, the case should be decided according to the basic value of justice. The just solution is the one that results in the lesser of evils. Justice demands that we do not, retroactively, undermine the position of someone who was entitled to rely on a representation of another, as the petitioner was entitled to do in this case.

(Majority opinion — Justice Y. Kedmi) Before fertilization, each spouse can change his decision to be a parent, and his basic right not to be a parent prevails over the contractual right of his partner to demand performance of the agreement between them. After fertilization, the right of the spouse wishing to complete the procedure of bringing the child into the world and to become a parent is strengthened by the fertilization of the ovum. From this point onward, the right of the spouse wishing to complete the process of bringing the child into the world overrides the right of the one wishing to destroy the fertilized ovum.

(Majority opinion — Justice Y. Türkel) The ethical weight of the right to be a parent is immeasurably greater than the weight of the right not to be a parent. Doing „ethical justice‟ compels us to prefer the former right to the latter.

(Majority opinion — Justice G. Bach) Where there is no express statute to guide us, we must avail ourselves of our sense of justice, and make our ruling according to what seems to us to be more just, in view of all the circumstances of the case before us. Even if the scales of justice were evenly balanced, then the fact that preferring

Ruth‟s position created the possibility of granting life and bringing a living person into our world, would tip the scales.

(Majority opinion — Justice E. Mazza) The restriction that Daniel wishes to impose on Ruth‟s right to be a mother, although it appears to be a specific restriction, is really a quasi-general one, since Ruth has no real alternative to becoming a mother other than by use of her ova that were fertilized with Daniel‟s sperm. The restriction that Ruth wishes to impose on Daniel‟s right not to be a father against his will is a specific restriction. Imposing a specific restriction on Daniel‟s right is preferable to imposing a quasi-general restriction on Ruth‟s right to be a mother. The violation caused by the specific  restriction to Daniel‟s  right is, necessarily, less than the violation caused by the quasi-general restriction to Ruth‟s right. Where all other factors are equal, justice requires us to prefer the lesser violation to the greater violation.

(Minority opinion — Justice T. Strasberg-Cohen) Consent is required for each stage of the in-vitro fertilization procedure up to the point of no-return, which is the implantation of the ova in the woman‟s body. In the absence of such consent, Daniel cannot be compelled to consent to Ruth‟s aspiration against his will by means of a judicial order, either in the name of the law, or in the name of justice or in the name of life.

(Minority opinion — Justice T. Or) The consent of the parties to cooperate towards realization of an in-vitro fertilization procedure is a framework consent. It is founded on the basic assumption that the marital relationship between the parties will continue. But it does not include consent, ab initio, to all the stages and aspects of the fertilization procedure. The consent is based on the understanding that at each stage of the procedure the joint consent of both spouses will be required.

(Minority opinion — Justice I. Zamir) If, before the procedure began, Daniel were asked whether, if he separated from Ruth, he would consent to implantation of the ovum, which would make him and Ruth joint parents of a child, his answer, as a reasonable person, would be no. His initial consent to the procedure should therefore not be regarded as consent even in the circumstances of a separation. For the same reason, Daniel is not estopped from opposing the continuation of the fertilization procedure, since he never represented that he consented to the continuation of the procedure even if he separated from Ruth.

(Minority opinion — President A. Barak) Continuing consent is required for every stage of the fertilization procedure. This cannot be waived ab initio for reasons of public policy. Justice requires equality between the spouses in decision making. Refusing to give consent to the continuation of the fertilization procedure because the relationship has ended does not constitute bad faith.

Basic Laws cited:

Basic Law: Administration of Justice, 5744-1984, ss. 6, 15(c).

Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, 5752-1992, s. 1.

Statutes cited:

Administrative Courts Law, 5752-1992, s. 22.

Contracts (General part) Law, 5733-1973, ss Administrative Courts Law, 5752-1992, s. 22. 14(b), 25, 30, 31, 61(b).

Contracts (Remedies for Breach of Contract) Law, 5731-1970, s. 3(4). Criminal Procedure Law [Consolidated Version], 5742-1982, s. 3.

Foundations of Justice Law, 5740-1980, s. 1. Immovable Property Law, 5731-1971, s. 10.

Labour Court Law, 5729-1969, s. 33.

Land Law, 5729-1969, s. 10.

Penal Law, 5737-1977, ss. 314, 316, 316(a), Chapter 10, Article 2.

Surrogacy Agreements (Approval of Agreement and Status of the Child) Law, 5756- 1996, ss. 2, 2(1), 5, 5(c), 7.

Tenant‟s Protection Law [Consolidated Version], 5732-1972, s. 132(a). Torts Ordinance [New Version], s. 84.

Unjust Enrichment Law, 5739-1979, s. 2.

Regulations cited:

Civil Procedure Regulations, 5744-1984, r. 524.

Public  Health  (In-vitro  Fertilization)  Regulations,  5747-1987,  rr.  2,  2(a),  3,  8,

8(b)(1), 8(b)(2), 8(b)(3), 8(c)(3), 9, 11, 14, 14(c).

Israeli Supreme Court cases cited:

[1]          CrimA 95/51 Podamski v. Attorney-General [1952] IsrSC 6 341.

[2]          CA 451/88 A v. State of Israel [1990] IsrSC 44(1) 330.

[3]          CA 614/76 A v. B [1977] IsrSC 31(3) 85.

[4]          CA 5464/93 A v. B (a minor) [1994] IsrSC 48(3) 857.

[5]          CA 577/83 Attorney-General v. A [1984] IsrSC 38(1) 461.

[6]          BAA 663/90 A v. Bar Association Tel-Aviv District Committee [1993] IsrSC 47(3) 397.

[7]          HCJ 4267/93, Amitai — Citizens for Good Government v. Prime Minister

[1993] IsrSC 47(5) 441.

[8]          CA 488/77 A v. Attorney-General [1978] IsrSC 32(3) 421.

[9]          CA 413/80 A v. B [1981] IsrSC 35(3) 57.

[10]        CA 623/80 A v. Attorney-General [1981] IsrSC 35(2) 72.

[11]        HCJ  702/81  Mintzer  v.  Israel  Bar Association  Central  Committee  [1982] IsrSC 36(2) 1.

[12]        FH 22/73 Ben-Shahar v. Mahlav [1974] IsrSC 28(2) 89.

[13]        CA 461/62 Zim Israeli Shipping Co. Ltd v. Maziar [1963] IsrSC 17 1319; IsrSJ 5 120.

[14]        LCA 4298/92 Ezra v. Tel-Mond Local Council [1993] IsrSC 47(5) 94.

[15]        CA 518/82 Zaitsov v. Katz [1986] IsrSC 40(2) 85.

[16]        CA 398/65 Rimon v. Trustee in bankruptcy of Shepsals [1966] IsrSC 20(1) 401.

[17]        CA 214/89 Avneri v. Shapira [1989] IsrSC 43(3) 840.

[18]        FH 4/82 Kut v. Kut [1984] IsrSC 38(3) 197.

[19]        HCJ 200/83 Wathad v. Minister of Finance [1984] IsrSC 38(3) 113.

[20]        HCJ   4712/96   Meretz   Democratic   Israel   Party   v.   Jerusalem   District Commissioner of Police [1996] IsrSC 50(2) 822.

[21]        CA 499/81 Odeh v. Haduri [1984] IsrSC 38(4) 729.

[22]        CA 506/88 Shefer v. State of Israel [1994] IsrSC 48(1) 87; [1992-4] IsrLR

170.

[23]        HCJ 73/53 Kol HaAm Ltd v. Minister of Interior [1953] IsrSC 7 871; IsrSJ 1

90.

[24]        HCJ 153/83 Levy v. Southern District Commander [1984] IsrSC 38(3) 393;

IsrSJ 7 109.

[25]        HCJ 292/83 Temple Mount Faithful v. Jerusalem District Commissioner of Police [1984] IsrSC 38(2) 449.

[26]        MApp  298/86  Citrin  v.  Tel-Aviv  District  Disciplinary  Tribunal  of  Bar Association [1987] IsrSC 41(2) 337.

[27]        CA 496/88  Henfeld  v.  Ramat  Hasharon  Sports Association  [1988]  IsrSC 42(3) 717.

[28]        HCJ 1601/90 Shalit v. Peres [1991] IsrSC 45(3) 353; IsrSJ 10 204.

[29]        HCJ 4112/90 Association of Civil Rights in Israel v. Southern Commander

[1990] IsrSC 44(3) 353.

[30]        HCJ 3412/91 Sufian v. IDF Commander in Gaza Strip [1993] IsrSC 47(2) 848.

[31]        CA 105/92 Re‟em Contracting Engineers Ltd v. Upper Nazareth Municipality

[1993] IsrSC 47(5) 189.

[32]        CA 2266/93 A v. B [1995] IsrSC 49(1) 221.

[33]        HCJ 753/87 Borstein v. Minister of Interior [1988] IsrSC 42(4) 462.

[34]        HCJ 721/94 El-Al Israel Airlines v. Danielowitz [1994] IsrSC 48(5) 749;

[1992-4] IsrLR 478.

[35]        CA 154/80 Borchard Lines Ltd, London v. Hydrobaton Ltd  [1984] IsrSC 38(2) 213.

[36]        CA 554/83 Atta Textile Company Ltd v. Estate of Zolotolov [1987] IsrSC 41(1) 282.

[37]        CA 275/83 Netanya Municipality v. Sahaf, Israeli Development Works Co. Ltd

[1986] IsrSC 40(3) 235.

[38]        HCJ 846/93 Barak v. National Labour Court, Dinim 37 823.

[39]        HCJ 932/91 Central Pension Fund of Federation Employees Ltd v. National Labour Court [1992] IsrSC 46(2) 430.

[40]        CA 4956/90 Paz-Gas Marketing Co. Ltd v. Gazit Hadarom Ltd [1992] IsrSC 46(4) 35.

[41]        CA 248/86 Estate of Lily Hananshwili v. Rotem Insurance Co. Ltd [1991] IsrSC 45(2) 529.

[42]        CA 840/75 Jewish National Fund v. Tevel [1976] IsrSC 30(3) 540.

[43]        CA 555/71 Amsterdramer v. Moskovitz [1972] IsrSC 26(1) 793. [44]            HCJ 5087/94 — unreported.

Israeli District Court cases cited:

[45]        CC (TA) 3021/84 Apple Computer Inc. v. New-Cube Technologies Ltd [1987] IsrDC 5747(1) 397.

Australian cases cited:

[46]        Mount Isa Mines Ltd v. Pusey (1970) 125 C.L.R. 383.

American cases cited:

[47]        Davis v. Davis 842 S.W. 2d 588 (1992).

[48]        Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965).

[49]        Eisenstadt v. Baird 405 U.S. 438 (1972).

[50]        K.S. v. G.S. 440 A. 2d 64 (1981).

[51]        Kass v. Kass WL 110368 (1995).

[52]        Skinner v. Oklahoma 316 U.S. 535 (1942).

[53]        Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

[54]        Planned Parenthood of Missouri v. Danforth 428 U.S. 52 (1976).

[55]        Lochner v. New York 198 US 45, 25 S.Ct 539, 49 L.Ed 937 (1905).

[56]        In re Baby M 525 A. 2d 1128 (1987).

English cases cited:

[57]        Layton v. Martin [1986] 2 F.L.R. 227 (Ch.).

Jewish Law sources cited:

[58]        Rabbi  Moshe  ben  Maimon  (Maimonides),  Mishneh  Torah, Hilechot Ishut

(Laws of Marriage), 15, paras. 2, 5.

[59]        Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher, Arba‟ah Turim, Even HaEzer, 1. [60]     Rabbi Yosef Karo, Shulhan Aruch, Even HaEzer, 1, 1; 154, 4.

[61]        Mishnah, Tractate Yevamot 6, 6.

[62] Dr Avraham Steinberg ed., Encyclopaedia of Jewish Medical Ethics, vol. 2, the entry „In-vitro fertilization‟, at p. 115 et seq.; vol. 4, Responsum of Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli pp. 28, 41.

[63]        Responsum of Rabbi Shalom Shalush, „Fertilization in a Surrogate Womb‟, in

Orchot, the magazine of the Haifa Religious Council, no. 39, p. 31. [64]    Deuteronomy 4, 42; 16, 20; 19, 2-5.

[65]        Genesis 1, 28; 30, 1.

[66]        Bereishit Rabba 79, 9 on Genesis.

[67]        Jeremiah 22, 10.

[68]        Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Moed Katan, 27b. [69]         Mishnah, Tractate Gittin, 4, 5.

[70] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yevamot, 63b, 65b. [71] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Berachot, 3b, 10a. [72]    II Kings 20, 1.

[73]        Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher, Arba‟ah Turim, Hoshen Mishpat, 1. [74]             Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Shabbat, 10a.

[75]        Rabbi Yehoshua ben Alexander HaCohen Falk, Drisha, on Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher, Arba‟ah Turim, Hoshen Mishpat, 1, 2.

[76]        Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Nedarim, 64b. [77]                Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Makkot, 10a.

[78]        Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Maimonides), Mishneh Torah, Hilechot Rotzeah uShemirat Nefesh (Laws of Homicide and Preservation of Life), 7, 1.

[79]        I Samuel 1, 27.

[80]        II Samuel 19, 1.

For the petitioner — Z. Gruber.

For the first respondent — D. Har-Even.

JUDGMENT

Justice T. Strasberg-Cohen

Introduction

1.            The Nahmani case, which was considered on appeal (CA 5587/93 Nahmani v. Nahmani IsrSC 49(1) 485), now comes before us for a further hearing. For the purposes of this hearing we shall briefly review the facts. After several years of marriage without children, and after Ruth Nahmani underwent surgery, as a result of which she lost the ability to conceive naturally, the Nahmani couple decided to have children by means of in-vitro fertilization. Ova taken from Ruth‟s body were fertilized with Daniel‟s sperm, frozen and stored at the hospital. The couple entered into a contract with an institute in the United States to find a surrogate who would bear their child. But before this stage of the procedure had been reached, Daniel Nahmani left home, established a new family and fathered a daughter, while he was still married to Ruth, who refused to be divorced. Ruth contacted the hospital and asked for the fertilized ova in order to continue the procedure, and when she was refused, she filed suit in the Haifa District Court, which ruled in her favour. This court allowed the appeal of Daniel Nahmani, by a majority decision with Justice Tal dissenting, and this led to the further hearing.

2.            The emotions, morals and norms associated with this issue naturally lead to a lack of consensus. Differences of opinion concerning a problematic issue such as this are to be expected and are legitimate, and are reflected in both the decision on appeal and this decision (see also Ch. Gans, „The Frozen Embryos of the Nahmani Couple‟, 18 Tel-Aviv Uni. L. Rev., 1994, at p. 83; Dr

A. Marmor, „The Frozen Embryos of the Nahmani Couple: a Response to Chaim Gans‟, 19 Tel-Aviv Uni. L. Rev., 1995, at p. 433; and Ch. Gans, „The Frozen Embryos of the Nahmani Couple: a Reply to Andrei Marmor‟, 19 Tel- Aviv Uni. L. Rev., 1995, at p. 453). The problem before us has two diametrically opposed solutions. We must choose a solution that is consistent with both the law and the fundamental principles of our legal system, and that is based upon the values and norms of our society.

I have re-examined the matter before us with an open heart and mind. I again reviewed the appeal judgment, the opinions of my colleagues in this proceeding and the erudite articles published after judgment was given. I have reconsidered and re-examined my earlier position and tested it against the opposing position, and in the final analysis, I do not see any reason to change it.

In the judgment on appeal, I discussed at length the nature, novelty and difficulty of the matter before us, and I shall not repeat myself. Nonetheless, it is appropriate that what was covered extensively in that decision should be referred to in this. Moreover, I shall make clarifications to my position, which will constitute an integral part of my remarks in the judgment on appeal. The two opinions should be regarded as one.

In the first opinion, the issue was examined and analyzed from every possible angle. In it I concluded, after having examined and analyzed the fundamental rights of the individual, that a spouse does not have an enforceable right, where that right would lead to imposing parental status on an „objecting‟ spouse. It was held that there is no basis in the various areas of private law, whether in law, statute or case-law, for granting shared genetic material to one of the spouses without the consent of the other. The opinion concluded that the fertilized ova — which are pre-embryonic — have no independent „right‟ to life, nor have they any kind of status that would give precedence to someone interested in the continuation of the procedure over someone who does not wish this. Comparative law was brought to show that the majority of countries in the enlightened western world — whether in statute or as a result of recommendations made by commissions that considered the issue — require both spouses to consent to each stage of the procedure, including the stage of implantation, and without consent from both spouses, the procedure cannot continue. This can also be seen in the Public Health (In-vitro Fertilization) Regulations, 5747-1987, and it was also the recommendation made by the Professional Public Commission for Examining the Issue of In-vitro Fertilization, 1994, whose members included renowned experts from several relevant fields. It can also be seen from the recently enacted Surrogacy Agreements (Approval of Agreement and Status of the Child) Law, 5756-1996.

Court intervention

3.            It has been argued that the appeal decision avoided intervention in the case or taking a stand, and that the outcome was a matter of chance resulting from the status of the litigants, with the stronger party having the advantage. These claims have no basis. I too am of the opinion that there should be legal intervention, even in cases involving normative value judgments, as well as in matters ruled by emotion; indeed, the appeal decision did just that. It did not refrain from taking a stand or from intervening, as suggested by Dr. D. Barak-Erez („On Symmetry and Neutrality:  Reflections on the Nahmani Case‟, 20 Tel-Aviv Uni. L. Rev. (1996) 197). The decision adopted a position

by refusing to force parenthood on a person. This constitutes ethical, normative and legal intervention. It is not avoiding making a decision. It is a decision made responsibly. The outcome was not a matter of chance resulting from the status of the litigant, as plaintiff or defendant (as claimed by Dr Barak-Erez, ibid.). The outcome would have been identical had a suit been filed by Daniel Nahmani for an injunction preventing the ova from being given to Ruth Nahmani, or had a suit been filed by the institution where the ova are stored because it had been given conflicting instructions. The decision does not give legitimacy to the maxim „might is right‟, but instead it applies the law in its wider sense. It does so in a way that reflects the legal policy outlined by the principles and norms that are fundamental to our legal system, a policy that recognizes the basic rights of the individual, his freedom of choice, and a refusal to force on him a status that he does not agree to take upon himself.

Indeed, 1e have not been called upon to interpret a particular statute, and we are not required to implement any such statute. In this case, as in others, we are called upon to decide issues that are not governed by any special statute. We must establish a legal norm that has ethical significance. In doing so, we are not operating in a vacuum. We have at our disposal the rich world of existing law with all its branches that affect the issue under discussion.

The case as an exception

4.            The matter before us is exceptional in that it is the first and only case being litigated. But it is not exceptional with regard to the situation that it presents to us. What do I mean by this? As science presents us with new, previously-unknown possibilities, and as more and more couples use in-vitro fertilization, the problem before us will take on an increasing general importance. Quarrels and  separations  between  spouses  are — unfortunately — a common phenomenon in our society. Whenever a couple quarrels about the use of fertilized ova, it occurs between spouses who have separated, and one of them does not agree to continue the procedure. The rule established by this court will have implications for all of these people, and the question of whether consent is required by each spouse to every stage in the in-vitro fertilization process prior to implantation in the womb must receive a clear, principled answer. The same is true of the question whether a spouse who refuses to continue the procedure that will lead to his becoming a parent against his will should be compelled to do so. Our determination in this case is likely to have implications that go beyond the specific circumstances in this instance, and affect every field where an individual has

rights that have no corresponding obligations, and where the consent of those involved is required to achieve a common goal.

As I said in the judgment on appeal, foremost in my mind has been Ruth Nahmani‟s longing for motherhood, her anguish and frustration at not being able to achieve it, and the improbability that she will become a biological mother. But we should not consider only the specific case before us, and sympathy and understanding for Ruth Nahmani‟s aspiration is insufficient for giving rise to a legal remedy to her problem. This issue cannot be decided on the basis of the wishes of one of the parties; it must be decided according to the rights and duties  of the parties  vis-à-vis  one  another, and these are enshrined in our legal system and provide the basis for an answer.

The right of parenthood

5.            It would appear that no one disputes the status and fundamental importance of parenthood in the life of the individual and in society. These have been basic  principles of  human  culture throughout  history. Human society exists by virtue of procreation. Realizing the natural instinct to be fruitful and multiply is a religious commandment of the Torah (see Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Maimonides), Mishneh Torah, Hilechot Ishut (Laws of Marriage), 15, 2 [58]; Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher, Arba‟ah Turim, Even HaEzer, 1, 1 [59]; Rabbi Yosef Karo, Shulhan Aruch, Even HaEzer, 1, 1 [60];

H. H. Cohn, HaMishpat (Bialik Institute, 1991) 579, 580). This is a basic need for ensuring the continuation of society and the self-realization of the individual. The importance of parenthood and its status as a basic constitutional right has found expression in American case-law, see: K. D. Alpern ed., The Ethics of Reproductive Technology, New York, Oxford, 1992,

p. 252, and the decisions cited there. With respect to the status of this right, the Court of Appeals of the State of Tennessee said in Davis v. Davis (1990) [47] at pp. 4-5:

„The United States Supreme Court in Skinner v. Oklahoma… recognized [that] the right to procreate is one of a citizen‟s “basic civil rights”. Conversely, the court has clearly held that an individual has a right to prevent procreation. “The decision whether to bear or beget a child is a constitutionally protected choice.” Cary v. Population Serv. Int‟l, … Eisenstadt v. Baird … see Griswold v. Connecticut … Matter of Romero…‟

The dispute is not about the importance of parenthood and the status of the right to be a parent. That is not the question at issue. In principle, the

relevant question is: is it possible, because of the great importance of parenthood, to force parenthood on someone who does not want it, and to use the machinery of the legal system to achieve such coercion? In order to answer this question, it is first necessary to make a correct classification of parenthood as a value, in the relationship between the potential parents.

Classification of rights

6.            The classification of norms that regulate activity in relationships between man and his fellow-man has not infrequently occupied legal scholars and academics in various fields. The scholar Dias deals extensively with what is sweepingly called „rights‟, and indicates the lack of clarity that prevails on this issue and on the distinctions gradually reached by scholars.

„Claims, Liberties, Powers and Immunities are subsumed under the term “rights” in ordinary speech, but for the sake of clarity and precision it is essential to appreciate that this word has undergone four shifts in meaning. They connote four different ideas concerning the activity, or potential activity, of one person with reference to another‟ (R. W. M. Dias, Jurisprudence, London, 5th ed., 1985, at p. 23).

Dias presents a list of thinkers and jurists (Sir Edward Coke, Hobbes, Bentham and others) who contributed to the conceptual classification of

„rights‟, and he mentions the American jurist Hofeld, who revised and completed a table made by the scholar Salmond, and prepared a table known as the Hofeld Table, which categorizes the claims, liberties, powers and immunities that are called „rights‟, according to their status, substance and implications (ibid., at p. 23).

In CrimA 99/51 Podamski v. Attorney-General [1], Justice Agranat — with regard to the classification of rights — gives a summary of several principles that he says are derived from the writings of recognized legal scholars, who classified rights into rights entailing legal obligations or legal liberties or legal privileges. Legal rights, in the narrowest sense, are interests that the law protects by imposing duties on others with regard to those interests. By contrast, legal rights in the widest sense also include interests that are recognized by the law but do not entail a legal duty. These are the liberties (see Salmond, On Jurisprudence, London, 11th ed., by G. Williams, 1957, at pp. 269, 273). Where a person has a right that is a liberty or a privilege, he is under no duty toward either the State or another to refrain from carrying out the act, just as he is under no duty to carry out an act that

he is free not to do. A right that is a freedom or a liberty cannot impose a duty on another and require him to perform an act that he is free not to do.

„Sometimes a right takes the form of a “liberty” or a “privilege”: in such a case, the duty that we are obliged to uphold is not to interfere with, or disturb, the exercise of the right…‟ (H. H. Cohn, HaMishpat, supra, at p. 512).

Moreover, at p. 513:

„“Basic rights”, or “human rights”, or “civil rights” are rights to which a person is entitled by law, as a human being. Some say that these rights were born with us, or are inherent in us; but whatever may be the case, we are concerned, as stated, not with “natural” rights but with legal rights.‟

Below the freedom to be a parent will be called a „right‟.

Classification of the right to parenthood

7.            The right to be a parent is, by its very nature, essence and characteristics, a natural, innate right, inherent in human beings. It is a liberty that does not entail a legal obligation, either in relations between the State and its citizens, or in relations between spouses. The right not to be a parent is also a liberty. It is the right of the individual to control and plan his life. Indeed, non-parenthood in itself is not the protected value. The protected value in non-parenthood is the liberty, privacy, freewill, self-realization and the right to make intimate decisions without interference. These are protected basic values of supreme importance, from which the liberty not to be coerced into parenthood is derived (see also: CA 451/88 A v. State of Israel [2], at

p. 337; H. Fenwick, Civil Liberties, London, 1993, at p. 295). Regarding freewill as a liberty leads to the conclusion that every person is free to choose and decide whether or not to be a parent, and a person wishing to be a parent cannot coerce another into becoming one in order to become a parent himself. This also means that the State may not impose parenthood on a person, either directly or through the courts. Consequently, I do not accept the position of those who consider the right not to be a parent as a right of less value than the right to be a parent.

The right to be a parent and the right not to be a parent are two rights which, although they are two sides of the same coin, have different characteristics. Each in itself can be found within the framework of civil liberties; the distinction between the two levels of rights does not lie in the one being a positive right and the other a negative right, but in the right to

parenthood belonging to the group of rights requiring cooperation of another individual in order to achieve it, whereas the right to non-parenthood does not extend beyond the particular individual (see Ch. Gans, „The Frozen Embryos of the Nahmani Couple‟, supra, and Ch. Gans, „The Frozen Embryos of the Nahmani Couple: a Reply to Andrei Marmor‟, supra). This distinction affects the question of the limits of proper legal intervention.

Had the right to be a parent been a right in the narrow sense, entailing an obligation, consent ab initio would not theoretically be needed, since when the obligation exists, all that remains is to examine what is the proper relief. Since the right is a liberty that does not entail an obligation but entails an opposing right, and since it requires two persons to achieve it, the person needing cooperation must obtain it from the other by receiving his consent throughout the procedure.

The right to be a parent — when the spouse refuses — requires a coercive, positive judicial act, whereas the right not to be a parent requires no intervention or interference in the freedom of the person who is unwilling to undertake parenthood. Since the „refusing‟ parent has a right not to be a parent, such a coercive order should not be made against him. Realizing the right of someone who wants parenthood by imposing an obligation on someone who does not want it conflicts with the essence of the freedom and deals it a mortal blow.

Non-coercion of parenthood

8.            In the sphere of liberties, the law refrains from forcing someone to do what he is not obliged to do, and this is also the case in other contexts within the sphere of inter-personal relationships. Every person has a right to marry. Nonetheless, no-one disputes that a person to whom a promise of marriage is made and breached will not receive from the court a relief of enforcing the promise. Every person has a right to establish a family and have children. Nonetheless, no-one disputes that the State — directly or  through  the court — may not coerce a person to have children if he does not want to, even if he promised his spouse to do so, and even if the spouse relied on this and maybe even entered into the marriage by relying on this and with an expectation that this is what will happen. Why do we not do this? Not merely because a mandatory injunction cannot compel performance (other than perhaps by way of contempt of court proceedings until the „refuser‟ wants to do it), but because of the fundamental and normative reason for this, namely the refusal of the law to employ coercive measures to realize the wishes of one  of  the  spouses  contrary  to  the  wishes  of  the  other  (Griswold  v.

Connecticut (1965) [48], at pp. 1688-1689; Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) [49], at

p. 1038; P. Shifman, „Parent against one‟s will — false representation about use of contraception‟, 18 Mishpahah 1988, at p. 459).

9.            Refraining from forcing parenthood on someone who is not prepared to undertake it is especially important in view of the nature and significance of parenthood. Parenthood involves an inherent restriction on future freedom of choice, by imposing on the parent an obligation that encompasses most aspects of life. Entering into the status of parent involves a substantial change in a person‟s rights and obligations. When a person becomes a parent, the law imposes on him an obligation to care for his child. We are not talking of a mere concern, but of an obligation to place the best interests of the child as his foremost concern. A parent cannot deny the needs of his child merely because it is inconvenient for him to fulfil them. A parent‟s responsibility for his child‟s well-being also has a tortious and criminal aspect. This responsibility embodies the normative expectation that our social values and legal system have of the individual, with respect to his functioning as a parent. The very significant implications deriving from this status necessitate that the decision to be a parent is made only by the person concerned (see also P. Shifman, Family Law in Israel, vol. 2, The Harry Sacher Institute for Research of Legislation and Comparative Law (1989), 174; CA 614/76 A v. B [3], at p. 93; CA 5464/93 A v. B [4]).

There are some who consider the paternity of Daniel Nahmani —should the procedure continue and result in the birth of a child — as merely an economic burden of which he can rid himself. There are some who hold that when Daniel gave his consent to begin the procedure, he need not be consulted again and the procedure may be continued, irrespective of his wishes. This is the opinion of some of my colleagues, as well as Dr Marmor in „The Frozen Embryos of the Nahmani Couple: a Response to Chaim Gans‟, supra, with which Prof. Gans disagrees in „The Frozen Embryos of the Nahmani Couple: a Reply to Andrei Marmor‟, supra). Dr Marmor holds that the procedure can be divided into two: the technical stage — when the husband gives over his genetic material — and the „parental‟ stage — the continuation of the procedure to its end. In his view, when the husband gives over his genetic material, the husband‟s role is ended, and this should be sufficient for continuing the procedure without him. His cooperation is not needed for continuing the procedure. Since he is not liable to raise the child that will be born, his right to personal autonomy is not affected. In his opinion, the right of a woman to carry out an abortion derives from an

unwillingness to  impose on her options that will be very  limited if she becomes a mother in such a way that her right to an autonomous life is nullified. This is not the case — in his opinion — with respect to the husband.

10.          I find it difficult to agree with such theses. I do not accept that the consent of a married couple to the fertilization procedure with a view to parenthood is completed by giving over the genetic material which ends in fertilization. The two decisive stages in the fertilization treatment are: first, in-vitro fertilization of the woman‟s ova with the man‟s sperm; and second, the implanting of these in the body of a surrogate mother. The two stages are different in nature and they are carried out on different dates. The two spouses are partners in all the stages of the procedure, and they should not be regarded as having done their part when they have given over the genetic material. This material is part of its owners and continues to be so even after it has been separated from them. The interest of each of the spouses in the procedure is existential, and it has lifelong implications. I do not think that the husband can be considered merely a technical means for realizing the wife‟s motherhood. Bringing a child into the world without the father‟s consent should not be regarded solely as an economic burden from which he may exempt himself — moreover, under the law he cannot exempt himself from it. A decision to bring a child into the world is a joint decision of supreme importance in the lives of both parents. The great importance of parenthood as a value, the obligation it imposes on both parents, and the expectations that society has of the parents and of each one of them to their children are the factors that should give full weight to the husband‟s right — as well as the wife‟s — not to bring a child into the world against their will. The special status of parenthood in the field of the basic rights of the individual and the burden of obligations that it involves is the source for the principle that parenthood should not be forced upon someone who does not want it.

11.          Recognizing the need for ongoing consent in order to bring a child into the world creates equality, which is a fundamental value in our legal system. Giving the wife the possibility of terminating an unwanted pregnancy, and giving the husband — as well as the wife, if she wishes it — the possibility of stopping the in-vitro fertilization procedure is an expression of this value. The possibility of stopping the procedure is blocked only when a right that takes precedence comes into the picture; this, in the case of pregnancy, is the wife‟s right not to become a mother against her will and her

right over her body. These two rights give her the right to have an abortion without the husband‟s consent. The wife‟s right over her body derives from the same fundamental values of personal liberties and personal autonomy, which are the basis of a person‟s right not to be a parent against his will. Only when a third factor enters the picture, such as the right of the wife over her body, which takes precedence, does the right not to be a parent give way to it.

The nature of consent

12.          An examination of the issue before us from the perspective of basic rights is an examination of one of the many aspects of this issue, and as I said in the judgment on appeal*:

„… consideration of the question before us from the viewpoint of human rights is insufficient to decide it, for we are not concerned with a couple where one of the spouses wishes to bring children into the world and the other opposes this, and the law does not force itself on the “objector”; we are concerned rather with spouses who have gone a long way together and given their genetic material from which ova were fertilized and put in frozen storage, in order to bring a child into the world with the help of a surrogate mother. Should the husband be forced to continue the procedure even in this situation? I suspect that he should not. The reasoning for this position requires consideration of the nature of the consent of the spouses and the legal regime within which it operates.‟

13.          The fertilization procedure for joint parenthood embodies, by its very nature and as an essential condition, the consent of both spouses. What is the nature of the consent on a crucial, sensitive, and intimate subject such as having a child? Generally, consent is an accord of the wills of two or more persons, which makes their individual wills into a common will. Consents between married spouses can be distinguished into two categories: a general, main and central consent, which is a consent to live together as a couple, and goal-oriented consents for achieving a specific goal within the framework of married life, of which the most important is the consent to bring children into the world. The specific consent is reached within the framework of the main consent, and it is entitled to exist only within that framework and as long as it continues, unless the spouses have decided otherwise. When there is a main consent to a joint relationship, any decision that is of major significance to

*             Ibid., at p. 503 {20}.

both parties to the relationship and that derives from that relationship, cannot be made by one of the partners. A consent of a married couple to a procedure leading to parenthood, which is the most important of the goal-oriented consents, requires the procedure to be begun with consent and to be continued with consent. Both spouses will face the consequences of such a consent together. Therefore, someone who agrees to fertilization but does not agree to implantation cannot be bound by his consent to the first stage of the fertilization. Each spouse has the right to withdraw his consent when the marriage has been undermined and the main consent has collapsed. Consent to the in-vitro fertilization procedure — from a theoretical and conceptual perspective — is like consent to the natural procedure of fertilization. Just as someone who has agreed to bring children into the world naturally can withdraw his consent, so too someone who began the in-vitro fertilization process can refuse to agree to continue the procedure or withdraw his consent. I am aware that in the first case the „objector‟ who withdrew his consent cannot be „compelled‟, whereas in the second case there is no such problem, since the fertilized ova are situated outside the bodies of the two spouses; but the question and the answer thereto lie in the normative, theoretical, conceptual sphere and not in the practical sphere. The question is whether it should be done, and not whether it can be done. My answer is that it should not be done; rather, we need the consent of both spouses throughout the procedure.

14.          Admittedly, the right to withdraw the initial consent creates a degree of uncertainty, but this exists in many spheres of married life, and it does not deter people from entering into it. A decision to bring a child into the world by means of in-vitro fertilization is a serious and momentous one. The difficulties and risks involved in this procedure far from guarantee success. The refusal of a spouse to continue the procedure is merely one of the possible risks. A couple starts the procedure against a background of a working marriage, notwithstanding the risks and uncertainty as to the success of their marriage and the success of the procedure. It can be said that a situation in which, after the in-vitro fertilization, there is no right to withdraw on any condition or in any case, may deter spouses from entering into a procedure from which there is no way out, no less that the fear that that the procedure will be stopped as a result of the collapse of the marriage, something that is feared by my colleague Justice Tal.

The consent of the Nahmani couple

15.          ‟What is the status of the consent that was given; what is its scope, what is its nature? Is it subject to any legal framework, and if so, what is that framework? Was an agreement made between the parties, and if so what is its basis and what are its implications? What are the ramifications of the change of circumstances that occurred subsequently on this agreement? Is the person who gave his consent entitled to revoke it and what is the remedy that can be granted, if any?‟* I answered these questions extensively in the judgment on appeal, where I emphasized  the problematic status  of an undertaking to change personal status, where I said:

„In our case the agreement was made in special circumstances, on an intimate, personal and sensitive matter that lies within the sphere of the human psyche. Notwithstanding, I do not think that this case does not involve any agreement whatsoever. The Nahmani couple expressed consent, determination and resolve with regard to a very serious matter and they took steps to carry out their consent. When two persons continue to give their consent and do not revoke it, their wishes should be respected and the agreement should be acted upon in so far as it concerns matters that they have agreed (provided that they indeed agreed them). Such an agreement — as long as the parties still agree with regard to it — is valid vis-à-vis third parties such as the medical institution or other parties involved in the in-vitro fertilization procedure, and these should respect the joint wishes of the parties (within the framework of the law). Notwithstanding, we are not concerned with an ordinary contract but with an unique contract. It certainly does not fall into the category of “perfect” contracts. Since it has contractual elements, it can be classed among the “weak” contracts. Therefore the legal framework that applies to it will also not be the framework of the laws of contract in the strict and narrow sense.‟†

16.          My colleague Justice Tal holds that we are dealing with an unenforceable extra-contractual agreement, but in his opinion Ruth does not require anything of Daniel, and his consent is not needed for the implantation. Is it really the case that Ruth is making no demands of Daniel?

*             Ibid., at p. 507 {26}.

†             Ibid., at pp. 509-510 {29}.

I suspect that the opposite is true. She demands that his opinion should not be taken into account, that he should be removed from the picture and that his refusal should be ignored. She demands that she should be allowed use of the genetic material against his will in order to bring a child into the world. She demands that the court should give consent instead of Daniel and instruct the hospital to give her the ova so that she can continue a procedure that will lead to the birth of her and Daniel‟s joint child, without his consent. To this end she asks that his consent to fertilization should be interpreted as consent to bringing a child into the world against his will, even if he will not raise the child.

Against this background, what is the significance of my colleague‟s determination that Ruth does not require anything of Daniel and that his consent is unnecessary at the time of implantation? The significance is that Daniel‟s consent is frozen in time and place, and constitutes a firm resolve at a given moment — the moment of fertilization — exactly as in a regular contract. From this moment onwards — which in our case is the period from the time when the procedure was started until the implantation of the ova — the spouses are „bound‟ by their consent and each can do as he pleases with the other‟s genetic material without the other‟s consent and against his will. This is a rigid and narrow statement, even within the framework of the laws of contract themselves, and all the more so in the special and sensitive

„contract‟ before us, in which the laws of contract should not be applied strictly, but in keeping with the nature, background and circumstances of the relationship. The contractual aspect does not operate in a legal vacuum of its own. It constitutes part of the laws of contract in their wider sense, and it should not be severed from them absolutely. It follows that we must examine the consent of the couple and each one of them and their implications, by using the tools available to us, which we must borrow from the sphere of law that is closest to the matter, namely the contractual sphere in its wider sense, adapted to the sensitive material with which we are dealing. In this framework, the agreement between Ruth and Daniel is a special agreement built on the foundation of a functioning married life. It anticipates a joint future, and the birth of a child wanted by both into the family unit. It is unenforceable and ought not to be enforced in the absence of a joint will of both parties throughout the process.

Agreement, representation and estoppel

17.          In order that the consent should have legal effect, the law makes certain requirements, some formal and some substantive. These requirements

are not mere obstacles. Underlying them are normative, social and ethical ideals that require the existence of certain elements or a certain form of elements, in order to create a binding legal obligation. They are all needed to create reliability, stability, clarity and certainty and to ensure that the person making the commitment knows what he can expect, and understands the significance of expressing his will. This is the case with every consent, but all the more so with regard to „informed consent‟, which requires awareness of the circumstances in which the consent will operate. The consent required for bringing a child into the world in this way is „informed consent‟ at each stage of the procedure. Consent at the stage of fertilizing the ova cannot be used to infer „informed consent‟ to the continuation of the procedure in circumstances that are totally different to those that  prevailed when the procedure began.

18.          Was there any express or implied consent or promise on the part of Daniel to continue the procedure in any circumstances and under any conditions, and is he estopped or prevented from changing his mind? My answer to these questions is no. Within the framework of the main consent to a joint lifestyle, the Nahmani couple reached a joint decision to bring a child into the world. They began the procedure and carried out the first stage of fertilizing the ova and freezing them. Before the consent had matured and before the joint goal was achieved, the family unit fell apart and the main consent collapsed. From a factual perspective it is clear that, from this stage onwards, there no longer existed the main consent to a joint lifestyle, and there was no consent to bring a child into the world outside this framework. The court is asked to give the goal-oriented consent that never reached fruition an existence of its own, even though the main consent, within which framework it operated, has broken down and no longer exists. I suspect that this should not be done, and without consent to the continuation of the procedure, parenthood should not be forced on Daniel against his will.

19.          The law recognizes the right of a person who gave his consent to change his mind in circumstances that are different from those in which the consent is supposed to be realized. For example, consent to give a child up for adoption, which was given before the child was born, is a consent without awareness of the circumstances that will exist when the adoption will take place. It is specifically for this reason that the law allows the person who gave his consent to change his mind. „If consent was given before the birth of the adoptee, the court may invalidate it for this reason only, namely because of the date when it was given…‟ (CA 577/83 Attorney-General v. A [5], at p.

484). In this matter also consent may be withdrawn, until a third factor enters the picture — the best interests of the child — which is a higher value that overrides the right to withdraw the consent. In this way the principle that I wish to apply in our case is applied.

20.          Both from a factual and a legal perspective, there was no consent, and certainly no informed consent, on the part of Daniel to continue the procedure in the circumstances of a breakdown of the family unit. It is reasonable that when the couple began the procedure by consent, they assumed that their marriage would continue, and in this framework their joint child would be born. Reality has dealt them a hard blow. The circumstances have changed utterly, and although Daniel created the change —

„We are not sitting in judgment on the acts of Daniel Nahmani in the moral sphere and “punishing” him for his behaviour. These are not the criteria for deciding the question whether he has a right to object to the continuation of the procedure. The relationship between spouses is not static. It is by nature dynamic and subject to crises. The feelings of spouses are not always stable. They may change even without any connection to a complex procedure such as in-vitro fertilization. An initial consent to this procedure is not an informed one in the full sense of the word because of the inability to foresee — emotionally and psychologically — what will happen in the future. Spouses do not always deal successfully with the difficulties in their lives together, especially when they are faced with a procedure such as in this case, with its emotional, physical and economic difficulties and the subjective and objective problems that it involves.‟*

21.          Daniel did not promise Ruth that the procedure would continue whatever the conditions or circumstances, and such a promise cannot be inferred from his consent to begin the procedure when their family life was intact. The learned District Court judge did not reach any finding of fact that Daniel promised Ruth to continue the procedure even without the joint family unit and, indeed the evidence does not show that Daniel made such a promise or representation. The learned judge inferred from the initial consent a continuing and irrevocable consent. As I have explained both in the judgment on appeal and in this opinion, I do not accept this position. It is not required

*             Ibid., at p. 512 {33}.

by the facts of the case, it is inconsistent with our experience of life and it is incompatible with recognized and accepted principles of law. What can be seen from the evidence and is plausible from the circumstances is the absence of a promise to bring a child into the world even if the marriage collapsed and the family unit broke up. The absence of such a promise is inherent in the circumstances surrounding the goal-oriented consent to joint parenthood of the couple within the framework of the main consent to married life.

22.          Daniel did not make any representation upon which Ruth could rely, and in practice Ruth did not rely on any representation, and did not begin the procedure on the basis of such a reliance. She did not adversely change her position by relying on any representation. The only representation that can be inferred from the circumstances is a limited representation of consent within the framework of the existing family unit, assuming that it will continue to exist. The procedure began when their family life was functioning, with expectations that it would continue to be so, and that the child that would be born would become a part of it. The expectations proved vain and the main consent, and consequently the goal-oriented consent, no longer exist. An initial consent given to begin the in-vitro fertilization procedure is not a promise to bring a child into the world in any circumstances whatsoever. It is a promise that is limited to the conditions and circumstances in which it is given.

It follows that Ruth‟s expectation that she could bring Daniel‟s child into the world notwithstanding his opposition, against his will and not into a family unit jointly with him is a wish but not an enforceable right; but not every wish of one person imposes an enforceable legal obligation on another; not every desire of one person constitutes a basis for a judicial order against another. Not all walks of life should be controlled by court orders. There are spheres — and marriage and family planning are some of the most obvious — where judicial enforcement halts at the threshold of the litigants. When a couple enter into a marriage, each promises the other that they will live together forever. This promise, which no-one thinks is enforceable, exists on the level of good intentions, expectations, hopes and desires. There is no remedy in the law that can guarantee its existence, nor should there be. The same is true also of a promise for joint parenthood. Enforcing parenthood is not a legitimate option when we are speaking of actions that require the consent of both spouses. As I stated in the judgment on appeal:

„The relationship between spouses should be based on love, friendship,  understanding,  support,  trust  and  consideration.

Sometimes this relationship collapses, expectations fade, hopes vanish and  dreams are shattered.  Not in  every case can the victim find a remedy for his injuries in court orders, where enforcement is impossible, is improper in view of the circumstances and under the law, and is inconsistent with the basic rights of the individual in our society.‟*

23.          Consent loses its significance only when the fertilized ova have been implanted in the woman‟s body. Then the body of the surrogate mother enters into the picture — and no interference can be allowed to this without her consent. It may be that one day, when science allows even pregnancy to take place outside the woman‟s womb, we will be confronted with a new problem that must be faced. Who can foresee the future? At present, we reach the point of no return only when the ova are implanted in the body of the surrogate mother, when the value of the woman‟s right to protection of her body, control of her body and non-interference with her body takes precedence. The relevant considerations for fixing the point of no return at the latest time and place in the procedure derive from a balance between the conflicting rights and interests. Until the stage of implantation, the value of free choice takes precedence and consent is required. From that moment onwards, rights and interests that override the interests protected by the principle of consent enter the picture. In a natural pregnancy, the point of no return is reached when the pregnancy begins, because from which point onwards the woman does not need her  partner‟s consent to perform an abortion because of her control over her own body and her right that it should not be interfered with. With in-vitro fertilization, this point is reached upon implantation of the ova in the woman‟s body, since then the woman‟s right over her body enters the picture, and this overrides the need for consent to the continuation of the procedure.

The need for consent in different legal systems

24.          Most western countries, Europe, England, the United States, Canada and others, require continuing consent throughout the procedure, for each stage. I discussed this extensively in the judgment on appeal, so I will say nothing more. In all of those countries, each spouse may withdraw consent at any stage of the procedure. In some of the countries, there is legislation to this effect, such as, for example, in England: the Human Fertilization And Embryology Act, 1990 (Schedule 3, sect. 4). Pursuant to this law, effective

*             Ibid., at p. 522 {48}.

consent is required, and this incorporates the possibility of a change and withdrawal of consent at any time before use of the fertilized ova. The withdrawal of consent by one of the parties obliges the authority storing the fertilized ova to destroy them. This is also the case in Western Australia: the Human Reproductive Technology Act, 1991 (ss. 22(4) and 26(1)(a)(i)).

In the United States, Canada and other Western countries, the issue is not regulated by legislation, but rather by the recommendations of commissions that were appointed to investigate the issue. In some of these countries — because of the great importance attributed to consent in  such  a  fateful matter — it was recommend that the couple should agree between themselves in advance as to the fate of the ova in the event of a separation, and their agreement would then be honoured (there was no such agreement in our case). The vast majority of these countries give the couple the prerogative of making a joint decision whether to continue the procedure or terminate it, and they require the express consent of both to each stage of the procedure, which will be stopped if one of the parties expresses opposition to its continuation (for the position of legislation and the recommendations of the various commissions in the various countries, see the judgment on appeal).*

The American Medical Association submitted recommendations according to which continuing consent is required, and it did not accept the view according to which consent at the time of fertilization only is sufficient (see: American Medical Association, Board of Trustees Report, JAMA, vol. 263, no. 18, 1990, at p. 2486).

In the surrogacy agreements that are common in the United States, among bodies that deal with them, there is a section that requires the consent of both spouses to implantation in the womb of the surrogate, and the signature of both of them on a surrogacy agreement. This was also the case with the agreement which was supposed to be signed by the Nahmani couple but which was never signed. In a judgment of the United States Federal Court

K.S. v. G.S. (1981) [50], the court expressed the opinion that once consent is given, it is deemed to continue; but the court further held that as soon as the consent is expressly terminated, the procedure cannot continue. The petitioner refers to the judgment in Kass v. Kass (1995) [51], (See New York Law Journal, 23 January 1995), where the written agreement between the parties was interpreted as providing for the continuation of the procedure in the event that the couple separated, and the court honoured this agreement

*             Ibid., at p. 503 {20}.

and gave it validity. Here there is no such agreement. Consequently, this decision has no bearing on our case.

In Israel, the issue has not been regulated in direct legislation. The Public Health (In-vitro Fertilization) Regulations, which I considered extensively in the judgment on appeal, require consent of the husband at all stages of the in- vitro fertilization.

The public commission established in Israel to examine the issue of in- vitro fertilization and to submit its recommendations, unanimously recommended that:

„… in the absence of joint and continuing consent, no  use should be made of the fertilized ova that were frozen until the end of the freezing period agreed by the spouses but consent that was given at the beginning of the treatment shall be deemed to continue as long as neither of the spouses revokes it in writing‟ (emphases supplied).

„The Commission considered the possibility that the genetic mother or the genetic father would have no other way of realizing genetic parenthood. But giving permission to have a child in such a situation, without joint consent, means forcing fatherhood or motherhood, both from the legal viewpoint and from the emotional viewpoint, in that there will be a child who is born without their consent. The commission was of the opinion that a man or woman should not be forced to be a father or mother against their will, even if they initially consented to this‟ (see the Report of the Professional Public Commission for Examining the Issue of In-vitro Fertilization (1994), 36).

On 7 March 1996, the Knesset passed the Surrogacy Agreements (Approval of Agreement and Status of the Child) Law. Section 2(1) of this law requires written consent between the surrogate mother and the parents availing themselves of her services. The conditions and the procedure for approving the agreement are set out in the law, which stipulates in section 5(c) that „the approvals committee may reconsider an approval that was given if the facts, circumstances or conditions that served as a basis for its decision have undergone a substantive change, as long as the fertilized ova have not been implanted in the surrogate mother in accordance with the surrogacy agreement‟ (emphasis supplied). The point of no return is the moment of implanting the ova. Until this point, the continuing consent of both partners to the procedure is required. This issue was expressly included on the agenda

of the Knesset Committee, when the first draft law contained the words „as long as the fertilization has not been carried out in accordance with the agreement, the committee may reconsider…‟ was changed in the law to „as long as the fertilized ova have not been implanted…‟ (see the discussions of the Knesset Labour and Social Affairs Committee on 9 Jan 1996, at p. 14, 17). The aforesaid approach derives from the basic ethical recognition that regards parenthood as a journey taken by two people together — a journey that can only begin by virtue of consent between them, and that can only continue by virtue of continuing consent between them.

25.          In all the countries that require the continuing consent of both spouses, the ova can be destroyed either by joint agreement of the couple or due to the passage of time. In Israel, too, the ova are destroyed after five years (regulation 9 of the Public Health (In-vitro Fertilization) Regulations), unless both spouses request an extension of the period. This is a result of the outlook that regards the consent of both spouses throughout as essential and imperative, and from the outlook that the ova are the „quasi-property‟ of the two owners of the genetic material and they do not have, in themselves, a

„status‟ worthy of protection (see also Gans, „The Frozen Embryos of the Nahmani Couple‟, supra, at p. 86). Their status is pre-embryonic.  With regard to the status of the ova, as regarded in the western world, in Israel and in Jewish law, I can only refer to what I wrote in the judgment on appeal, and I will not expand on it.*

26.          My colleague Justice Tal sees support for his approach in Jewish law; but it is very questionable whether my colleague‟s position reflects  the approach of all aspects of Jewish law. „Even Jewish law, which imposes a commandment to be fruitful and multiply on the man, but not on the woman (Mishnah, Tractate Yevamot 6, 6 [61]), does not see fit to compel him if he does not fulfil his obligation. The refusal gives the woman a ground for divorce but not a ground for enforcement and coercion (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilechot Ishut (Laws of Marriage), 15, 5, [58]; Rabbi Yosef Karo, Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer, 154, 4 [60]). See the responsum of Rabbi S. Yisraeli, „On Consent and Retraction in Pregnancy and Birth by In- vitro Fertilization‟ in Encyclopaedia of Jewish Medical Law, Dr A. Steinberg ed., vol. 4, p. 28, 41 [62]; ibid., vol. 2, under „In-vitro fertilization‟, p. 115 [62], the responsum of Rabbi Shalom Shalush, „Fertilization in a Surrogate

*             Ibid., at p. 519-520 {44-47}.

Womb‟, Orchot, the magazine of the Haifa Religious Council, no. 39, p. 31 [63] (see also the judgment on appeal).*

Before I end  this opinion,  I would like to associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues Justices Or, Zamir and President Barak. I would also like to add some remarks with regard to what is stated in the opinions of some of my colleagues whose positions are different from mine, and which came to my attention after writing this opinion.

The right to life

27.          My colleagues, Justices Goldberg and Kedmi discussed the biological aspect of parenthood and the transfer of the genetic material from generation to generation. My colleague Justice Türkel granted Ruth Nahmani‟s wish by emphasizing the „right to life‟ and the enormous value of „human life‟. The

„value of life‟ and the „right to life‟ cannot be belittled, for we hold them to be amongst the most exalted and sacred rights, if not the most sacred right of all. But the fertilized ovum is not a living creature. The fertilized ovum is genetic material of both spouses in a pre-embryonic state, frozen soon after fertilization. It is composed of several separate cells, without any distinction between what will become a foetus and what will become a placenta. We are not dealing with preservation of existing life, but with advancing the potential for life. We are not speaking of preserving life that has been created, but with the creation of life ex nihilo. A society in which the individual is entitled to  plan his family and have children, a society  which does not compel someone to create life, not even as a moral injunction (except as a religious injunction), cannot force someone to create life against his will, in the name of the right to life. The creation of life is a totally separate issue from the preservation of existing life. Every enlightened society struggles with the question whether to create life at any cost. Medicine and technology allow for the creation of life by means that are becoming more and more removed from the natural means of creation it. The day may not be far off when it will be possible to replace the mother‟s womb with an artificial one that will carry the foetus and the whole process of creating life can take place in laboratories. The moral questions will continue to reverberate in the air and will become even more acute. Most of the states of the United States and most European countries that venerate the sanctity of life prohibit the creation of life by means of a surrogate mother, for moral, ethical, ideological,   sociological,   medical   and   other   reasons.  Various   bodies,

*             Ibid., at pp. 500, 506 {15, 24}.

including the „Israel Women‟s Network‟, regard surrogacy as immoral and encouraging a type of female slavery, which offers the womb for hire. The topic of in-vitro fertilization involves existential questions concerning the nature of life. One cannot find in the sacred and supreme value of life a reason or justification for forcing either of the spouses to create life by means of an in-vitro fertilization procedure; the consent of each of the spouses to the implanting of the frozen ova in the surrogate cannot be waived. The procedure cannot be continued without the consent of the two spouses that donated their genetic material. The sanctity of life has nothing to do with considerations for continuing the fertilization procedure, by coercion, at this early stage prior to the creation of life.

„Justice‟

28.          It is only natural that in the case before us, which has existential, emotional and normative human aspects, opinions are divided and there is no single solution. But recruiting „justice‟ for one view, thereby negating it from the opposing view, is to do an injustice to the opposing view, and possibly even to justice itself.

Man is commanded to pursue justice: „Justice, justice you shall pursue‟ (Deuteronomy 16, 20 [64]); the law strives to do „justice‟; but the difficult and paramount question has always been, what is „justice‟, what is its meaning, what are its characteristics, how is it defined and how is it attained. These questions have occupied the greatest scholars of the Bible, the Talmud, philosophy, literature, law and religion in all generations and cultures. Justice has many aspects and many facets: social, personal, political, national, economic, legal, etc.. Some see in human justice an attempt to imitate divine justice (imitatio Dei); some regard equality as the embodiment of justice. Others regard the dispensing of just law as compliance with the rules that fall within the scope of the „rules of natural justice‟.

The difficulty in defining and discovering justice is discussed by Justice Cohn, HaMishpat, supra, at p. 84:

„… Justice is not a science that can be discovered or defined: it is an attribute of the soul; and the fact that it is beautiful and humane, does not make it easier to define. It can be compared to the beauty of a Beethoven symphony or of a Gothic cathedral that one cannot prove… It is usually the case, for example, that each of the litigants who stands before a judge genuinely feels and believes that justice is on his side; the sense of justice of the

successful litigant is satisfied, whereas the sense of justice of the losing litigant is severely injured, and he is convinced that an injustice has been done to him… So it can be seen that the human sense of justice cannot serve as a yardstick for an objective party, in addition to the fact that it cannot even be defined or measured. Moreover, one cannot know, and one certainly cannot determine, whether one person‟s sense of justice is more reliable or trustworthy than that of another: from its subjective perspective, each of them is right, but even from an objective point of view, each of them may be right, or partially right.‟

Concerning the many and vague connotations of the term „justice‟, the scholar C.K. Allen says:

„Ever since men have begun to reflect upon their relations with one another and upon the vicissitudes of the human lot, they have been preoccupied with the meaning of justice… I choose at random a miscellany of the adjectives which, in my reading, I have found attached to different kinds of justice — distributive, synallgamatic, natural,  positive,  universal,  particular, written, unwritten, political, social, economic, commutative, recognitive, juridical, sub-juridical, constitutional, administrative, tributary, providential, educative, corporative, national, international, parental.

A very little ingenuity would extend the vocabulary indefinitely. There seems to be no end to this classification and sub- classification and its instructiveness is not always proportionate to its subtlety. There is a danger of the cadaver being so minutely dissected that little of its anatomy is left visible to normal sight‟ (C. K. Allen, Aspects of Justice, London, 1958, at pp. 3-4).

In recent decades, we find scholars that have given up trying to find an exhaustive and uniform definition of the nature of „justice‟. In this regard Ronald Dworkin says:

„In the end, however, political theory can make no contribution to how we govern ourselves except by struggling against all the impulses that drag us back into our own culture, toward generality and some reflective basis for deciding which of our

traditional distinctions and discriminations are genuine and which spurious, which contribute to the flourishing of the ideals we want, after reflection, to embrace, and which serve only to protect us from the personal costs of that demanding process. We cannot leave justice to convention and anecdote‟ (Ronald Dworkin, A Matter of Principle, Cambridge, 1985, at p. 219) (emphases supplied).

29.          „Justice‟ for one person may be „injustice‟ to another, or an „injustice‟ to society; the exercising of a right by one person may involve a violation of the right of another, which will prevent him from exercising his own right; every litigant believes that justice is on his side, and that feeling stays with him even when he has lost the case, and then he feels that he has suffered an

„injustice‟. Socio-economic „justice‟ in a certain society may be perceived as

„injustice‟ in another society. Is not the repair of a wrong to one person at the expense of another, merely because the first person was harmed and even if he has no right against the other, an „injustice‟ to the other? Is the granting of compensation to a person who was injured, without him having a cause of action to receive relief, by making another  person liable, because he is injured and the other person can pay, doing „justice‟? The law does not require a person who has promised marriage to fulfil his promise, and it does not compel him to do so. The relief granted is compensation. The law does not require a person to have children with his spouse even if he promised to do so and changed his mind. A person who breaks a promise causes disappointment and frustration to the other. His behaviour is not „just‟, but the law will not require him to keep his promise in the name of „justice‟. The law does not intervene when a woman aborts a foetus against the father‟s will: is that „just‟ to him? According to his feeling of frustration, unfairness and loss, it is not just; notwithstanding, the law will prevent the man from interfering and will protect another interest which it regards as preferable; autonomy over the body.

30.          The scholar Hare said that not only do people disagree as to the just solution to a particular problem, but it is possible that there is no completely

„just‟ solution to a particular problem:

„By this I mean not merely that people can disagree about the just solution to a particular dilemma, but that there may be no completely just solution‟ (R. M. Hare, Moral thinking, Oxford, 1981, at p. 158).

Doing justice in a trial cannot be fully expressed in a formula. It is a complex process of finding a balance between various factors, including equality. The scholar Dias says:

„Justice is not some “thing”, which can be captured in a formula once and for all; it is a process, a complex and shifting balance between many factors including equality. As Freidrich observed “Justice is never given, it is always a task to be achieved”.‟ (Dias, Jurisprudence, supra, at p. 66).

31.          Notwithstanding the difficulty in discovering and defining justice, the desire to do justice is an inner imperative of every judge. The exercising of judicial discretion constitutes an effort to achieve justice. The judge‟s subjective sense of justice guides his judicial discretion to achieve legal justice, which is an integral part of the law. In his aforementioned book, Cohn says at pp. 93-94:

„… One must not distinguish between the nature and purpose of the law and the „legal justice‟ in its application. We have already seen that people are different from one other, also in that each of them has his own sense of justice, and an individual sense of justice is, to some degree or other, a function of individual interests. Should every person exercise his own sense of justice and act accordingly, then I fear that the world would revert to utter chaos. By upholding the law, man makes his contribution towards the existence of the world… This is what we have said: if statute and the law is upheld, social justice will be done, and the purpose of this is merely to foster peace between men.

… Legal justice is always manifested in acts and omissions that comply with the norms that bind everyone and apply equally to everyone…‟ (emphases supplied).

He also says:

„Of the many meanings of justice, which we have already discussed, we have chosen very specific meanings in which we see “justice” that constitutes an integral part of the “law” as we have defined it. This “justice” is consistent, to a large degree, with what Pound termed “the philosophical, political and moral ideas” that — as we have seen — also in his opinion constitute an integral part of the law.‟ (H. H. Cohn, HaMishpat, supra, at p. 83; emphasis supplied).

32.          Justice, as an abstract concept, is neutral in our case. A finding in favour of Daniel Nahmani is doing an „injustice‟ to Ruth Nahmani, and a finding in her favour is doing an „injustice‟ to him. We must seek „justice‟ that is consistent with the „philosophical, political and moral ideas‟ that are an integral part of the law.

My decision in the matter before us, that the implantation process should not proceed without Daniel‟s consent, is a decision of justice in law. It is not a random or partisan decision. It is not an intuitive decision based merely on subjective feelings and an inner voice. It is a decision based on the values of justice of the legal system, which are incorporated in it and are its very essence: the rights of the individual, personal autonomy, relationships between spouses in the field of fertility, the result of a joint decision which requires two people to carry it out, the establishment refraining from forcing parenthood on someone, the need for cooperation and consent between spouses on a subject hidden in the recesses of the human soul and inherent in the delicate fabric of intimacy and parenthood. The decision that I have reached is the result of a process of various balances between values, rights and desires that conflict with one other. It represents — to the best of my understanding and feeling — the dispensing of legal justice, in its complete and coherent sense. Loyalty to the basic norms, to the fundamental principles of the legal system, to basic human rights, to the liberties of the individual and equality in exercising and realizing these rights and applying the law in its wider sense, will ensure that a just trial that is normative, ethical, principled and worthwhile. „Gut feelings‟ or „subjective feelings‟ are likely to lead us on the path of granting a right to someone who does not have one and forcing the will of one person — by means of the law — on another, so that duties that he does not have will be imposed on him, and this coercion constitutes a violation of his basic rights, which we are mandated to safeguard. All of the aforesaid emphasizes the difficulty inherent in attaching the label of „justice‟ to one of the two possible solutions.

Conclusion

33.          I am aware of Ruth‟s distress and frustration, of which I have been mindful throughout. I am aware that Ruth‟s harm from the non-realization of her parenthood is greater than Daniel‟s harm if parenthood is imposed on him: Ruth‟s contribution to the fertilization involved suffering and effort beyond those involved in Daniel‟s contribution; Daniel left the home, established a new family, achieved parenthood, while for Ruth this is apparently the last chance to realize biological motherhood. Daniel should be

mindful of this balance and consider whether as a result he ought to consent to allow Ruth to try to realize her aspiration. No-one can, or should, consent in his stead, and he should not be forced to consent by means of a judicial order that will replace his consent. Such a balance does not replace the required consent, and it does not create a legal right capable of judicial enforcement. Such a balance cannot avail us when a right is a liberty without a corresponding duty and when there is no basis for establishing a right to force parenthood on someone against his will.

34.          In summary of my position I will say that, in my opinion, a person has the liberty to be a parent and thereby fulfil a basic human yearning, but he does not have a right that imposes on another a duty to make him a parent, and to make himself a parent. In the absence of mutual consent to bring a child into the world, the right to be a parent — as part of the right of self- realization — cannot limit the autonomy given to another person and the freedom of choice given to him to direct and plan his life. Two people are needed to bring a child into the world, and this implies a need for continuing consent of both of them to achieve this purpose. Without joint consent, a person should not be obliged to continue a procedure that is likely to result in an unwanted parenthood. Consent to begin a procedure of  in-vitro fertilization within the framework of a main agreement for a joint life and joint parenthood cannot be considered sufficient consent or continuing consent, and even if it can be considered as such, each party is entitled to retract it when there is such a drastic change of circumstances as in our case. Consent is required for each stage up to the point of no return, which is the implantation of the ova in the woman‟s body. In the absence of such consent, Daniel cannot be compelled to consent to Ruth‟s aspiration. Daniel did not agreed to bring a child into the world in all conditions, circumstances and frameworks. He made no such promise, made no such representation, and when the framework within which the original consent of the two spouses operated fell apart, the procedure cannot be continued without obtaining Daniel‟s consent or by ignoring his refusal to consent to the continuation of the procedure. Parenthood cannot be forced upon him against his will by means of a judicial order, neither in the name of the law, nor in the name of justice nor in the name of life.

Therefore my opinion remains as before, that the petition should be denied.

Justice Ts. E. Tal

The case of the Nahmani couple is again placed before this court for its decision, pursuant to the decision of President Shamgar, who ruled that a further hearing should be held on the judgment of the Supreme Court in CA 5587/93.*

Let us briefly review the main facts and proceedings of the Nahmani case. The couple married in 1984, and after three years the wife was compelled to undergo a hysterectomy. In 1988 the couple decided to try and have a child by means of in-vitro fertilization of the wife‟s ova with the husband‟s sperm, and implantation of the fertilized genetic material in the womb of a surrogate. Surrogacy was not permitted in Israel at that time, and so they decided to carry out the fertilization stage in Israel and implantation in the United States at a surrogacy centre there. After the fertilization took place, but before the implantation stage was carried out, disputes arose between the couple. The husband left home and went to live with another woman, who became pregnant and bore him a child.

The wife applied to Assuta Hospital, where the fertilized ova were deposited in cold storage, and she asked to receive it in order to carry out the implantation. The hospital refused, because of the husband‟s objection, both in a letter to the hospital and in a letter to the surrogacy centre in the United States. The wife applied to the Haifa District Court, where his honour Justice

H. Ariel ruled that she was entitled to receive the fertilized ova.† Among the

reasons given by the judge, a central role was given to the consent between the spouses, and to the fact that the husband could not withdraw his consent. The husband filed an appeal on the judgment, and the appeal was allowed by majority opinion.

I have once again studied the matter, as well as the remarks of my colleagues both in the appeal and in this proceeding, and I have not changed my opinion,  which was the minority opinion  in  the aforementioned  CA 5587/93.

My opinion was based on the principle that we do not listen to a man who wants to terminate a pregnancy, even when the pregnancy was obtained by deception and fraud, because we do not interfere with a woman‟s body

*             IsrSC 49(1) 485; [1995-6] IsrLR 1.

†             IsrDC 5754(1) 142.

against her will. Similarly, a man should not be heard with regard to termination of a fertilization procedure, when such a termination — retroactively — makes the interference in the woman‟s body futile, and her dignity and modesty are violated. Also, the man is estopped from withdrawing his consent, by virtue of the principle of reasonable reliance, when the woman has adversely and irrevocably changed her position. As explained there, estoppel by virtue of reliance is no longer merely a defence argument, but also constitutes a cause of action and a ground for enforcement.

I reaffirm what I wrote there, and I would like to add a few remarks. We do not have any provision in the law according to which we can solve the dispute before us. Even the Surrogacy Agreements (Approval of Agreement and Status of the Child) Law, which recently came into force, contains no provision that regulates a situation like the one before us. The silence of the legislator can be interpreted in several ways. See BAA 663/90 A v. Bar Association Tel-Aviv District Committee [6], at p. 404; HCJ 4267/93, Amitai — Citizens for Good Government v. Prime Minister [7], at p. 457.

It cannot be said that the silence of legislation amounts to a negative arrangement. The issue is too important, problematic and complex for an arrangement to be derived from silence.

It would seem that the silence of statute derives from the disparity that always exists between the rate of development in the fields of science and technology, and the ability of the law to absorb these changes and embody them in legislation. The Supreme Court of Australia described this disparity in Mount Isa Mines Ltd v. Pusey (1970) [46]:

„Law, marching with medicine, but in the rear and limping a little.‟

The law is silent in our case because it is „limping behind medicine‟, and consequently we have before us a field of medical law that has not yet been regulated by the legislator.

Development of the law

A lacuna in the law imposes on the court the duty to develop the law in order to provide a response to cases brought before it. It may not sit idly, as if it were better not to take any positive action. See in this regard J.C. Gray, The Nature and Sources of the Law, New York, 2nd edition, 1948, at p. 302:

„When a case comes before a court for decision, it may be that nothing can be drawn from the sources heretofore mentioned; there may be no statute, no judicial precedent, no professional opinion, no custom, bearing on the question involved, and yet the court must decide the case somehow; the decision of cases is what courts are for… And I do not know of any system of Law where a judge is held to be justified in refusing to pass upon a controversy because there is no person or book or custom to tell him how to decide it. He must find out for himself; he must determine what the Law ought to be; he must have recourse to the principles of morality.‟

In what manner and with what tools should we develop the law? Prof. Barak distinguishes between different types of legal creation, and in our case, it is important to distinguish between the following two: filling a lacuna and developing the law. In his article, „Types of Legal Creation: Interpretation, Filling a Lacuna and Development of the Law‟, 39 Hapraklit, (1990) 267, 269-270, he said the following:

„The second way in which a judge determines the law is by filling a lacuna… a lacuna exists where a legal norm or legal arrangement is incomplete, and this incompleteness conflicts with the purpose of the norm or the purpose of the arrangement. Just as there exists a gap in a stone wall, where the builder forgot to put in one of the stones needed to complete the wall…

The third way in which a judge determines the law is by developing the law… central to this is the judge‟s activity as a creator of a new legal norm, which is required by the needs of life, other than by interpreting an existing normative text, or creating a new normative text in order to fill a lacuna in an existing normative text.‟

Prof. Barak repeated these remarks in his book Interpretation in Law, vol. 1, The General Theory of Interpretation, Nevo, 1992, at p. 609, where he says:

„Development of the law is a judicial activity, in which framework the judge creates a new norm or declares an existing norm to be invalid… this activity is based on the need to adapt the law to the reality of life. Legal institutions and arrangements,

which served society in the past, may no longer be consistent with the needs of the present and the future.‟

According to this distinction, the case before us belongs to the field of development of the law, and not the field of filling a lacuna, since there is no defective or inadequate norm before us. Because of the rate at which life has developed, the legislator has not yet addressed all of the questions in the field of fertilization and genetics, and therefore we must create a proper norm to apply to the case before us.

In doing so, we must: a) consider the conflicting interests; b) determine the legitimate expectations of both parties; c) weigh up the proper legal policy considerations.

The conflicting interests

There are two main rights competing with one another: the right to be a parent and the right not to be a parent. However, since there is no provision in the law that applies to the case, it would be more precise to say the interest in being a parent and the interest in not being a parent. What is the nature of these interests? The interest in being a parent is one of the most basic aspirations of man, and needs no explanation. In CA 488/77 A v. Attorney- General [8], at p. 441, it was said:

„In general, a person has no more precious possession than the emotional bond between parents and their natural child, in which they see the fruit of their love, their own flesh and bone, and the succeeding generation that bears their genes.‟

And in CA 451/88 A v. State of Israel [2], at p. 337, it was said:

„The right to parenthood is a basic human right to which everyone is entitled…‟

The Supreme Court of the United States, in Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) [52], considered the question whether the right to parenthood is a protected constitutional right, and it concluded that the right to parenthood is „one of the basic civil rights of man‟ and that this right is „fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race‟ (ibid., at p. 541).

Against this existential interest lies the opposite interest, not to be a parent, or, to be more precise, not to be a parent against one‟s will. When we come to balance these conflicting interests, we should remember that despite the symmetrical forms of speech, „to be a parent‟ and „not to be a parent‟, these interests are not equal. The interest in parenthood constitutes a basic

and existential value both for the individual and for the whole of society. On the other hand, there is no inherent value in non-parenthood. The value that is protected in the interest of non-parenthood is the value of privacy, namely the freedom and right of the individual not to suffer interference in his intimate decisions. See in this regard the article of Dr Barak-Erez, „On Symmetry and Neutrality: Reflections on the Nahmani Case‟, supra, at pp. 198-200:

„It is not at all clear whether the right to be a parent and the right not to be a parent should be discussed on the same level merely because they are prima facie symmetrical. In other words, we cannot assume the existence of symmetry between the two rights just because they hold two ends of the cord of parenthood.

As a rule, the right to “something” and the right to “nothing” are not always equal. Is the right to life entirely equivalent to the right to die? Indeed, a moral position whereby every person has a right to live and a right to die, and the two of these are rights of equal weight, is possible. Whoever accepts this outlook will support full recognition of realizing the right to die, even by means of active “euthanasia”. But another, asymmetrical, position is possible. Thus, for instance, the “equivalent” approach to life and death has been rejected in Jewish thought. From CA 506/88 Shefer v. State of Israel we can see the approach of the court that the right to life has a higher status, and therefore, at most, it is possible to recognize passive “euthanasia” (in certain circumstances). In other words, the something and the nothing are not always of equal weight.

…

… Even were we to regard the right to parenthood and the right not to be a parent merely as derivatives of the autonomy of the will, there would not necessarily be symmetry between them. We do not respect every desire, and not every desire should be respected to the same extent. Moreover, the main criticism is directed against the narrow view of the judgment regarding the right to  parenthood.  Is it correct to  see in it a right that is “derived from the right to self-realization, liberty and dignity”? Is that all that it involves? In my opinion, we can find many other facets to it. The right to be a parent is an independent right, and not just an expression of the autonomy of the private will. Realizing the option of parenthood is not merely a possible way

of life, but it is rooted in human existence. There are some who will regard it as cure for loneliness; others will use it to deal with the thought of death. Indeed, the choice of refraining from parenthood is a possible way of life, which society and the law must respect. However the choice of parenthood is not just a decision concerning a way of life; it has much greater significance for human existence. It expresses a basic existential need. Moreover, the decision to become a parent also has an element of self-realization, particularly in modern society, which emphasizes self-realization as a value. But the right to parenthood does not derive only from self-realization. The right to life is an independent basic right, and it is not a derivative of the autonomy of the will; the same is true of the right to parenthood. From this perspective, the symmetry created by the judgment between the right to parenthood and a decision (legitimate, in itself) not to be a parent (as an expression of personal freedom) is undermined, or at least requires further consideration.‟

Let us turn to our case. First, we are not speaking of forced parenthood. We are speaking of a person who gave his consent to parenthood, but who wants his consent to be required also during the continuation of the procedure. The interest of society in non-forced parenthood does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that his consent is required over an extended period. The interest in preventing parenthood against a person‟s will is satisfied by requiring a one-time irrevocable consent.

Secondly, for the woman, it can be assumed that that this is her only possibility of realizing her parenthood.

The cumulative weight of these two factors leads to a clear conclusion that the interest of being a parent takes precedence. We can reach the same conclusion by comparing the damage that is likely to be caused by denying the rights. If you take parenthood away from someone, it is as if you have taken away his life. In the Bible we find the desperate cry of our ancestress Rachel, „Give me children, else I die‟ (Genesis 30, 1 [65]). Similarly, from the teachings of the Rabbis we learn that „whoever has no children is considered as a dead person‟ (Bereishit Rabba 79, 9 on Genesis [66]). Similarly, they interpreted the verse in Jeremiah 22, 10 [68]: „“Do not weep for the dead, nor bemoan him; weep indeed for him who goes” — Rabbi Yehuda  said:  for  him  who  goes  without  children‟ (Babylonian  Talmud,

Tractate Moed Katan 27b [69]). By contrast, denying the interest of non- parenthood amounts to no more than imposing burdens that may not be desirable to that person. Without belittling the weight of these burdens, they are not equivalent to „taking the life‟ of the spouse.

Even in Davis v. Davis [47] the court decided in favour of the husband‟s position, only because at that stage the wife was not asking for the fertilized genetic material for herself, but for another woman. The court said there that had the wife wanted the fertilized material for herself, and had the situation been such that she had no alternative for realizing her right to motherhood, the court inclined to the opinion that the wife‟s right to motherhood should take precedence over the husband‟s right not to become a father.

In summary of this point, I will say that the woman‟s interest in motherhood is greater, and overrides the man‟s opposite interest.

The legitimate expectations of the parties

One of the tasks of a judge, when engaging in judicial legislation, is to realize the legitimate expectations of the parties. When we say „legitimate‟, we do not mean expectations embodied in the law, for if there were a statute or precedent in our case, we would not need to resort to judicial legislation;

„legitimate‟, in the sense of expectations that merit protection according to the system of values accepted by society.

The importance of this task was discussed by Prof. Barak in his article

„Judicial Legislation‟, 13 Mishpatim, 1983, 25, at p. 71:

„…We should refrain… from choosing that option that harms reasonable expectations. The reasons for this are many. Harm to a reasonable expectation harms the sense of justice, disrupts proper social life, harms the public‟s faith in the law, and denies any possibility of planning behaviour.‟

Realization of the parties‟ expectations is important in every sphere of judicial legislation, but it has special importance in our case. The development of fertilization and reproduction techniques requires the law to recognize the importance of the emotional aspect of the persons involved in these techniques. See in this respect A. E. Stumpf, „Redefining Mother: A Legal Matrix For New Reproductive Technologies‟, 96 Yale L. J. (1986-7), 187.

The case before us concerns two spouses who travelled a long distance in each other‟s company. It is true that one cannot know with certainty what the

spouses originally thought about a situation in which they might separate. But this uncertainty is not characteristic merely of  family  law. The law reconstructs a person‟s intentions in two ways; presumed intention and imputed intention: presumed intention, according to experience of life and common sense, and according to the special circumstances of each case; imputed intention, when there is no way of assessing the presumed intention of the parties, and the law — for its own purposes — attributes to someone an intention without his knowledge, and maybe even against his will.

Our case involves a woman who underwent gynaecological surgery and was forced to undergo complex, invasive and painful procedures in order to extract the ova, in the knowledge that this was almost certainly her last opportunity to bring a child of her own into the world. It is difficult to assume that she would have agreed to undergo these treatments in the knowledge that her husband could change his mind at any time that he wished. It is inconceivable that someone should agree that her last and only glimmer of hope should be dependent on the whim of her spouse, who might change his mind at any time.

It can therefore be said that the presumed intention of the woman was that a change of mind on the part of the man would not affect the procedure that had been begun.

And what is the husband‟s position? He was required at the outset to make a decision to agree to fertilize the ova with his sperm. Can it be presumed that he would have refrained from this had he known that he could not subsequently change his mind? Not necessarily. Husbands do not refrain from having sexual relations merely because their wishes will not be consulted later with regard to an abortion (following CA 413/80 A v. B [9]).

It therefore seems to me that we should assume that the presumed intention of both parties in this case was that neither party has a right to stop the continuation of the procedure.

With regard to „imputed‟ intention, an intention can be imputed for considerations of justice or considerations of policy. The considerations of justice have already been set out above, and we will mention them briefly. Giving a right to the husband to destroy the ova (or to prevent their use — which is the same thing) will deprive the woman of her only chance of having a child, while he has had children by another woman. On the other hand, giving the wife the ability to continue the procedure will impose on him undesired burdens. There is no basis whatsoever for comparing these

evils. Moreover, we are speaking of a man who gave his consent, and in reliance on this the woman consented to interference in her body and painful treatments, and also adversely and irrevocably changed her position. She did so by relying on a representation that the procedure would continue; thus the criteria for „promissory estoppel‟ were met, as I explained in CA 5587/93.* Now, after all of this, the husband wants to change his mind. Of cases such as this, it is said that „whoever changes course has the disadvantage‟. And when we consider whether to impute to the husband an intention that he could change his mind whenever he wanted, it seems to me undesirable to do so.

Another of the considerations of justice is that neither party should be given an unfair advantage. Saying that, in the absence of express consent, either party may change his mind whenever he wishes, disturbs the equilibrium and equality  between the parties. A need for the continuing consent of both spouses throughout the procedure gives the party wanting the procedure to be stopped a right of veto over the other party. This right leaves the party that wants to continue the procedure entirely at the mercy of the other party, who may consent and change his mind a moment later. This result is unacceptable. Instead, it should be held that in the absence of explicit consent with regard to a case of separation, an intention should be imputed to the parties that no party can change his mind.

In this matter also let us turn to the legal literature concerning Davis v.

Davis [47] for the purpose of comparison and inspiration.

The consideration that the party uninterested in implantation should not be given „control‟ over the other party was discussed in detail in the article of

A.            R. Panitch, „The Davis Dilemma; How to Prevent Battles Over Frozen Preembryos‟, 41 Case W. Res. L. Rev. (1991) 543, 572-573.

„One approach would be to require mutual spousal consent as a prerequisite to implantation of all preembryos created through IVF. This approach would require obtaining consent twice from each spouse — once when the IVF procedure is initiated and again before each implantation.

…

This rule would also have disadvantages, however. Most significantly it would grant tremendous power to one spouse over the other. It would mean that even though both spouses

*             Ibid..

initially consented to having a child through IVF, neither could proceed with certainty that the other would not truncate the process. Such an outcome would surely  frustrate the spouse seeking implantation, who will have invested large financial expense, time, energy, and, in the wife‟s case, physical pain. The required second consent for implantation could become a tool for manipulation and abuse between spouses, especially under circumstances of a pending divorce. Any spouse ultimately denied the chance to have a child through IVF would probably suffer considerable emotional stress‟ (emphases supplied).

After the author considers the advantages and disadvantages of this approach, she reaches the conclusion that the consent given at the time of fertilization should be sufficient, on the basis of the laws of estoppel:

„Fairness considerations require a determination of whether it would be more equitable to allow the spouse who wants to prevent the possibility of a birth to prevail, or instead to allow the spouse who wants to continue the process of procreation to prevail. One fact is of vital importance in making this judgment; the spouse who opposes implantation wanted a child at one time and submitted to the IVF process with that end in mind. The two spouses once agreed on this issue and initiated the IVF procedure in reliance on that mutual wish. Given this background, the greater injustice would be to deny implantation to the spouse who detrimentally relied on the other‟s words and conduct.

Protection against this sort of injustice is recognized by the well established doctrine of estoppel…

The elements of estoppel are satisfied in a dispute such as Davis. The knowing action of the objecting spouse is the undertaking of IVF for the purpose of producing a child. The prejudice to the other spouse consists of money, time and the psychological commitment necessarily expended in pursuing the full procedure. The injury would include not only the time and money spent, but also the last opportunity to have a child‟ (at pp. 574-575; emphases supplied).

See also B. L. Henderson, „Achieving Consistent Disposition of Frozen Embryos in Marital Dissolution under Florida Law‟, 17 Nova L. Rev. (1992) 549.

The conclusion arising from all of the aforesaid is that in the absence of an express stipulation between the parties concerning the fate of the ova in a case of separation, it should be presumed that their intention was that one party would be unable to stop the procedure against the will of the party interested in the implantation. And if their intention cannot be presumed, this intention should be imputed to them. According to weighty considerations of justice, the right of reliance and legitimate expectations, these expectations should be fulfilled without the need for continuing consent in order to continue the procedure once the fertilization was carried out by consent.

Policy considerations

Besides the abovementioned considerations, there are additional policy considerations according to which it should be held that consent of the parties only at the time of fertilization is sufficient.

First, legal stability and legal certainty demand that the period of time during which the consent of the parties is required should be reduced to a minimum. Apart from the two spouses, additional parties and bodies are involved in the procedure, including the surrogate mother and the medical institution. Allowing the possibility of unilateral cancellation is likely to increase the number of cases in which there are fluctuations and reversals, and it will make it more difficult to carry out the procedure.

This consideration has been mentioned in the context of adoption, and it was said that the court should restrict the number of cases where parents are allowed to withdraw their consent. In CA 623/80 A v. Attorney-General [10], at p. 77, Justice Shamgar said:

„… The results of the described approach, as established in Israel, are also dictated by logic and life experience: it will be very difficult to complete the adoption of a minor if,  even though the parents gave their consent, it would be necessary to fear or expect, each morning of the months that necessarily pass between the parents giving their consent and the granting of the adoption order, that perhaps the natural parents will suddenly change their minds, of their own initiative or through the influence of others, whatever their considerations or reasons may be.‟

Another consideration is that we should seek for an arrangement that will encourage couples that are unable to conceive naturally, to make use of methods of artificial insemination, and we should refrain from an arrangement that is likely to deter and prevent couples from using such methods. The determination that each party can change his mind whenever he so desires will certainly serve as a deterrent. This is true of both spouses, but especially of the woman who must undergo long and complex treatments. This is especially so when, as in the case before us, a single and last opportunity is involved.

On the other hand, there is no reason to believe that a determination that consent at the time of fertilization is irreversible will serve as a deterrent. The couple will consider all the factors before carrying out the fertilization, in the knowledge that they are irrevocably bound by their consent, unless the change of heart is a joint one. We have already pointed out above that the inability of husbands to demand that their wives have abortions does not constitute a deterrent to starting the process.

Considerations of proper legal policy, together with the ethical considerations and considerations of justice enumerated above, all combine to point to a clear and unequivocal conclusion: we should reaffirm the result reached by the District Court, and order the hospital to allow the woman to carry out the continuation of the treatment required for the purpose of surrogacy.

The right to abort

We can compare the question in this case to a similar issue, namely the issue of abortions.

The right of the woman, in certain circumstances, to abort a pregnancy is recognized in our legal system, even though there is public debate as to the grounds that justify an abortion, as reflected in statute (see chapter 10, article 2, of the Penal Law, 5737-1977). Exercising this right may harm the interests of the man; notwithstanding, it has been established that there is no need for his consent, and he even does not have any standing before the „abortions committee‟ under section 316(a) of the Penal Law (see CA 413/80 A v. B [9]).

In an article devoted to our case, Prof. Chaim Gans sought to reach the conclusion that:

„I said, that if women have the right to abort at the beginning of their pregnancy on the basis of their right to control their lives, Daniel Nahmani ought to have a right to stop the proceedings

leading to surrogacy of the ova impregnated with his sperm. Since I have shown that women have such a right, Nahmani also has such a right‟ (Gans, „The Frozen Embryos of the Nahmani Couple‟, supra, at p. 91).

However, the conclusion reached by Gans does not stand up to scrutiny. The preference that the law gives to the woman to decide about an abortion, while discriminating against the man and despite his objection, derives solely from the fact that we are speaking of a decision concerning her body. The woman alone carries the embryo, and therefore the decision to abort is hers alone. The symmetrical analogy regarding a similar right for the man is merely an imaginary and spurious analogy.

In an article that was published after the decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) [53], which developed the right of abortion, it was said that:

„Allowing women the exclusive right to decide whether the child should be born may discriminate against men, but at some point the law must recognize that there are differences between men  and  women,  and   must   reflect   those   differences‟ (R. A. Gilbert, „Abortion: The Father‟s Rights‟, 24 Cin. L. Rev. (1973) 443).

Indeed, the Supreme Court of the United States so held in Planned Parenthood v. Danforth (1976) [54], at p. 71:

„We recognize, of course, that when a woman, with the approval of her physician, but without the approval of her husband, decides to terminate her pregnancy, it could be said that she is acting unilaterally. The obvious fact is that when the wife and the husband disagree on this decision, the view of only one of the two marriage partners can prevail. Inasmuch as it is the woman who physically bears the child and who is the more directly and immediately affected by the pregnancy, as between the two, the balance weighs in her favor‟ (emphasis supplied).

Even under our law the principle that the husband has no right to oppose the abortion derives from the same reasons. The learned Prof. Shifman summarized the matter as follows:

„The main emphasis on the woman‟s right to control her body has led to the man having no standing in decisions regarding the termination of pregnancy. Thus it has been held in Israel, following similar rulings in the United States and Britain, that

the man is not entitled to prevent the woman from terminating her pregnancy, just as he is not entitled to demand that she abort if she wishes to continue the pregnancy. The woman‟s decision to terminate her pregnancy may harm the man‟s expectations of being a father, i.e., of the birth of a child originating in their joint genetic material, whose creation was, perhaps, the result of their joint decision. If the man is married to the woman, the woman‟s decision to abort might constitute a breach of legitimate expectations created by the marriage, which is conceived as a framework whose purposes include the bringing of children into the world.

Nonetheless, these considerations do not give the man, even if he is married to the woman, a right equal to hers in making the decision concerning termination of the pregnancy. The woman‟s preference derives from her interests in control over her body. These interests give her absolute discretion whether to initiate a termination of a pregnancy or not‟ (Shifman, Family Law in Israel, vol. 2, at p. 213).

It follows that, were it not for the decisive factor — the embryo being part of the woman‟s body, or in the words of the Rabbis: „An embryo is an organic part of its mother‟ — the woman would not have a right to destroy the embryo against the wishes of her spouse. Therefore, the logical conclusion from the laws of abortion is the opposite of the one that Gans sought to deduce. When not speaking of interference in her body, the woman is not entitled to destroy the embryo without her spouse‟s consent; in exactly the same way, the man is not entitled to destroy the ova against the woman‟s wishes (and is not preventing the use of them the same as destroying them?).

We should decide that the husband is not entitled to destroy the ova against the wife‟s wishes. On the contrary, the wife is entitled to continue the implantation procedure, notwithstanding the husband‟s opposition.

Equality

A substantial part of the majority opinion in CA 5587/93,* the subject of this hearing, was devoted to the principle of equality between the sexes. This is a fundamental legal principle, and therefore we must consider whether the solution proposed here stands up to the test of equality. In other words, do the

*             Ibid..

considerations and principles proposed hitherto remain unchanged in the opposite case, where the woman is the one who wishes to destroy the fertilized genetic material, and the husband is the one who wishes to continue the implantation process in the womb of a surrogate mother?

Admittedly, there was someone who argued that the advantage that the law gives the woman in the laws of abortion also exists in disputes over the fate of fertilized ova. However, as has been explained above, this position cannot be accepted. The woman‟s advantage in the laws of abortion derives solely from the fact that the embryo is a „part of its mother‟, and where this factor does not exist, there is no reason to depart from the principle of equality.

The answer to our question is clear and unequivocal. In the „opposite‟ case, when the man wishes to continue the procedure by means of another surrogate mother, the woman cannot object. The same considerations apply to the same extent, and it should be held that consent given at the time of fertilization is sufficient, and therefore the husband is entitled to continue the procedure even against the wife‟s wishes, and it need not be said, when this is his only opportunity to bring children into the world. The considerations of justice and proper legal policy then work in favour of the husband:

„There are several forms which a disagreement between progenitors could take. The woman may want the embryo to be brought to term, and the man may want the embryo terminated. In that case, it would seem appropriate for the woman to be allowed to gestate the embryo. The Supreme Court‟s abortion and contraception decisions have indicated that the right of procreation is the right of an individual which does not require the agreement of the individual‟s partner. In particular, the woman has been held to have a right to abort without the husband‟s consent and the right not to abort over the wish of the husband that she abort.

But what if the positions were reversed and the woman wished to terminate the embryo and her male partner wished to have it brought to term? When an embryo conceived naturally is developing within a woman during the first two trimesters, it is clear that the woman‟s decision whether or not to terminate it takes precedence over the desires of the man who provided the sperm… it is at least arguable that the man‟s wishes should be honored when the embryo‟s continued existence need not be

balanced against the physical and psychological needs of the woman carrying it. The man clearly would not have the right to force the female progenitor to gestate the embryo, but there seems to be no reason not to give him custody of the embryo for gestation in a surrogate mother‟ (L. B. Andrews, „The Legal Status of the Embryo‟, 32 Loy. L. Rev. (1986-87) 357, 406-407).

It follows that the proposed solution stands up to the test of equality and does not discriminate at all between the sexes. On the contrary, it limits the discrimination between the sexes in the laws of abortion merely to those cases where it is relevant, i.e., where the woman‟s autonomy over her body is concerned. But in the field of in-vitro fertilization absolute equality should be applied, and it should be held that the party interested in the implantation of the ova is entitled to do this, notwithstanding the opposition of the spouse.

Jewish heritage

There is no doubt that the fundamental principles of our legal system, according to the Foundations of Justice Law, 5740-1980, include Jewish heritage (see A. Barak, Interpretation in Law, vol. 1, The General Theory of Interpretation supra, at p. 616). Notwithstanding his criticism of the Foundations of Justice Law, Prof. Barak says that the arrangement prescribed therein is preferable to the arrangement that preceded the statute. In his words, „an arrangement that refers to Jewish heritage, which is our heritage, is preferable to an arrangement that refers to a foreign heritage‟ (ibid.).

It should be pointed out that reference to Jewish heritage comes after defining the legal question that requires decision, and the inspiration comes within the framework of this question. In our case, we have defined the question as follows: how should we balance between the value of parenthood and the value of non-parenthood?

Our heritage regards parenthood and having children as one of the highest values. In the Bible, we see that man was blessed:

„And God blessed them and God said to them: be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it…‟ (Genesis 1, 28 [65]).

This value is emphasized many times in the sayings of the Rabbis, and we will limit ourselves to one reference from the Mishnah (Gittin 4, 5 [69]): „The world was created only for being fruitful and multiplying, as it is said (Isaiah 45, 18): “He did not create it empty, he made it to be inhabited”.‟

It need not be said that non-parenthood is not one of the values of Jewish heritage. On the contrary, we find among the sayings of the Rabbis that:

„It has been taught: Rabbi Eliezer says: whoever does not engage in the commandment of being fruitful and multiplying is as if he spills blood‟ (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yevamot 63b [70]).

The Rabbis also explained in the Talmud (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Berachot 10a [71]), with regard to Isaiah‟s prophecy to King Hezekiah (II Kings 20, 1 [72]): „Give instructions to your house for you are dying and you shall not live‟ that he would die in this world, and he would not have life in the world to come, because he had not engaged in the commandment of being fruitful and multiplying.

In relations between spouses, Jewish law holds that the husband has an obligation to his wife, to help her bring children in to the world. Admittedly, this obligation is not enforceable, but a lack of enforcement is not relevant in our case, since the question of enforcement does not arise at all. The husband is liable to help, and he most certainly is not permitted to sabotage the process. In the judgment in CA 5587/93,* I cited the source for the existence of this obligation, which is in the Talmud (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yevamot 65b [70]), to which I refer.

Conclusion

The outcome of this case stems from its beginning. In his decision to hold a further hearing, President Shamgar said that:

„I think, with all due respect, that the questions that arose in Civil Appeal 5587/93 were examined thoroughly, comprehensively and in an illuminating manner, both in the majority opinion and the minority opinion. But the matter is novel and original, and without doubt of special importance in our world which is changing its appearance from a scientific and social perspective.‟

Now, after considering the issues in breadth and depth, it can be seen that the „novelty‟ of the matter did indeed justify a further hearing. It is the nature of a novel and original issue that one cannot understand it fully without revision and additional study.

*             Ibid..

After such study, I have reached the conclusion that ideally decisions concerning fertilized ova should be made by both spouses and with the consent of both. However, where there is no consent between the parties, as in the case before us, the spouse wishing to continue with the implantation procedure should be allowed to do so, notwithstanding the opposition of the other spouse.

Justice D. Dorner

1.            In this dispute between Ruth Nahmani (hereafter — the wife) and her husband Daniel Nahmani (hereafter — the husband) over the fate of their joint genetic material — the fertilized ova — the wife‟s right, in my opinion, take precedence.

The facts

2.            The couple married about twelve years ago. Like most couples, they wanted children. But the wife contracted a dangerous illness, and she was compelled to undergo a hysterectomy. Nevertheless, the couple did not give up their hope of children, and they decided to try in-vitro fertilization. The wife agreed that during the surgery to remove her womb, the surgeon would not harm her ovaries, and he would move them aside in such a way that they would not be damaged by the radiation that was to follow. By doing this, the wife — who fully consulted her husband in her decision — endangered her health.

The surgery was successful. The couple began to search for a „surrogate‟ mother in whom the ova, which would be taken from the wife and fertilized with the husband‟s sperm, could be implanted. But this search failed. The couple discovered that in view of the Public Health (In-vitro Fertilization) Regulations, 5747-1987, it was prohibited to implant fertilized ova in the womb of a „surrogate‟. For lack of any other option, the couple decided to carry out the whole procedure in the United States. For this purpose they flew to the United States and even succeeded, with considerable effort, in raising approximately 30,000 dollars. However, they soon discovered that this amount fell far short of the amount required. This economic obstacle left them with only one possibility. The couple began a legal battle. Their plan was that the fertilization should take place in Israel, whereas the implantation and „surrogacy‟ stages should take place in the United States. When they tried to carry out their plan, Assuta hospital made the fertility treatment conditional on the consent of the Ministry of Health. When this consent was

not given, the couple petitioned the High Court of Justice. After more than three years, in the middle of 1991, the battle ended. The Ministry of Health agreed to the petitioners‟ plan, and the consent was given the force of a judgment.

Immediately following this, the couple began to carry out their plan. Over eight months, the wife underwent a series of difficult medical procedures, in which ova were removed from her body. Eleven of these were successfully fertilized with the husband‟s sperm, and they were frozen for the purpose of their future implantation. Throughout this entire period, the couple went through the procedure together and the husband supported, encouraged and helped his wife. At the same time, the couple began the procedures for making a contract with a „surrogacy‟ institute in the United States. At the end of January 1992, the wife and the husband signed an agreement with the institute, which dealt with the financial aspects of the procedure. The couple also made payments necessary for the procedure.

While the spouses were at the crucial stage of the procedure, in March 1992 — two months after signing the agreement with the „surrogacy‟ institute — the husband decided to leave home and to move in with his girlfriend. A daughter was also born. He refused to give his consent to the continuation of the procedure and to the implantation of the fertilized ova. The wife has no practical possibility of repeating the procedure.

3.            On the basis of these facts, my colleague Justice Strasberg-Cohen held, in paragraph 33 of her opinion, that there is no doubt that in the balance of harm, the harm to Ruth from not realizing her parenthood is greater than the harm to Daniel if parenthood is forced on him. It would appear, therefore, that even the majority in the judgment that is the subject of this further hearing (hereafter — the Nahmani appeal) do not dispute that in this case the scales of justice in the struggle between the parties are tipped in favour of the wife. But the conclusion of Justice Strasberg-Cohen is that „we should not consider only the specific case before us, and sympathy and understanding for Ruth Nahmani‟s aspiration is insufficient for giving rise to a legal remedy to her problem‟ (paragraph 4), and that there is no proper basis that gives the court power to force parenthood on a person against his will (paragraph 33).

Even Prof. David Hed, who teaches the philosophy of morality at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, reached the conclusion that in this case a rift exists between the moral duty and the legal duty. He said the following in a newspaper interview:

„He [the husband] agreed to in-vitro fertilization with his wife. This decision required her to undergo painful treatments that endangered her health, treatments that also gave her great expectations. The price that she paid for the fertility treatment was immeasurably higher than the price that he paid, and this fact imposes on him a moral duty to let her complete the procedure, even if he lives apart from her. That is, so to speak, the price of the divorce. True, the price is enormous, but from a moral perspective I would expect him to bear it. In addition, her chance of having a child, if this ovum is not fertilized, is low… [nonetheless] the law cannot oblige  a  person to be a father against his will… since half of the genetic material of that ovum is his‟ (square parentheses supplied) (Hebrew University of Jerusalem Graduate Newspaper, 1996, 26).

The question that arises before us is whether the husband‟s right not to be a parent, based on his „ownership‟ of half of the genetic material of the ova fertilized with his sperm, really takes precedence over the right of Ruth, who also contributed half of the genetic material of these ova, to be a parent.

4.            Indeed, not every moral duty is a duty in law. But the law must lead to a just result. Prof. Dworkin, who denies the existence of judicial discretion, believes that the court should decide difficult cases on the basis of principles, morality and justice. He wrote as follows:

„I call a “principle” a standard that is to be observed… because it is a requirement of justice or fairness or some other dimension of morality‟ (R. Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously, London, 1979, at p. 22).

Even according to the approach that advocates the existence of judicial discretion, legal norms must be interpreted on the basis of the principles of morality, justice and human rights. In cases where fundamental principles conflict with one other, the conflict will be resolved by a proper balance between the conflicting values. See Barak, Interpretation in Law, vol. 1, The General Theory of Interpretation, supra, at p. 301. See also D. Lyons, Moral Aspects of Legal Theory, Essays on Law, Justice and Political Responsibility, Cambridge, 1993, at pp. 64-101.

Referring to the relationship between justice and law, Cohn wrote in

HaMishpat, supra, at p. 83:

„… The law must include an inventory of standards that take their place when other sources of law are insufficient. This does not necessarily concern considerations “beyond the letter of the law”. It would be more accurate to say that justice is a subset of the law, one of its limbs. It falls within the raw material available to the judge when he comes to determine the “law”; and subject to the supremacy of legislation, it influences — and it must influence — not only the creation of the “law” as part of the general law, but also the dispensing of justice between litigants.‟

5.            The aspiration to do justice lies at the basis of the law. This was already discussed by Aristotle, when he wrote:

τὸ γὰρ ἁμάρτημα οὐκ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ οὐδ᾽ ἐν τῷ νομοθέτῃ ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῇ φύσει τοῦ πράγματός ἐστιν... ὅταν οὖν λέγῃ μὲν ὁ νόμος καθόλου, συμβῇ δ᾽ ἐπὶ τούτου παρὰ τὸ καθόλου, τότε ὀρθῶς ἔχει, ᾗ παραλείπει ὁ νομοθέτης καὶ ἥμαρτεν ἁπλῶς εἰπών, ἐπανορθοῦν τὸ ἐλλειφθέν... διὸ δίκαιον μέν ἐστι, καὶ βέλτιόν τινος δικαίου, οὐ τοῦ ἁπλῶς δὲ ἀλλὰ τοῦ διὰ τὸ ἁπλῶς ἁμαρτήματος.

„… for the error is not in the law nor in the legislator, but in the nature of the case: … Whenever at all events the law speaks in a generality, and thereafter a case arises which is an exception to the generality, it is then right, where the legislator, by speaking in a generality, makes an omission or an error, to correct the omission… Therefore it [equity] is just and better than some justice, not better than the generality, but better than the error resulting from the generality‟ (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 5, 10, translated by the editor).

Aristotle solved the dilemma by holding that when equity is done by the judge in a case that comes before him, this is a part of justice, even if this is not expressly stipulated in statute.

Sometimes, when it turns out that the law does not achieve justice, the law is changed or adapted to the circumstances that have arisen, in a way that a just outcome is obtained. Thus, for example, the English rules of equity were developed as a result of the need to soften the rigidity of the rules of the common law, which in certain cases led to unjust results. The rules of equity

allowed a degree of flexibility in implementing the rules of the common law while taking account of the circumstances of each specific case, and they gave relief that was unavailable under the common law.

The doctrine of estoppel is associated with the rules of equity. This doctrine was intended to prevent an unjust result that would apparently be required by the law, by estopping litigants, in certain circumstances, from making in the court legal and factual arguments that are in  themselves correct. See H. G. Hanbury & R. H. Mausty, Modern Equity, London, 13th ed., by J. E. Martin, 1989, at pp. 5-51; G. Spencer Bower and A. K. Turner, The Law Relating To Estoppel By Representation, London, 3rd ed., 1977, at p. 4.

The rules of equity also exist in Jewish law sources. Justice Elon discussed this in HCJ 702/81 Mintzer v. Bar Association Central Committee [11], at p. 18:

„… the principled approach of Jewish law regarding the need for fixed and stable criteria and standards as a rule did not prevent it from requiring the judge trying a case to endeavour to find a solution for an exceptional case, if and when such a solution was required according to the criteria of justice…‟

Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher (Arba‟ah Turim, Hoshen Mishpat 1 [73]) cited the saying of the Rabbis (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Shabbat 10a [74]) that

„any  judge  who  judges  according  to  the  absolute  truth…‟.  This  was interpreted by Rabbi Yehoshua Falk as meaning:

„Their intention in saying the absolute truth was that one should judge the matter according to the time and place truthfully, and one should not always rule according to the strict law of the Torah, for sometimes the judge should rule beyond the letter of the law according to the time and the matter; and when he does not do this, even though he judges truly, it is not the absolute truth. In this vein the Rabbis said (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Bava Metzia, 30b) “Jerusalem was only destroyed because they based their rulings on the law of the Torah and not beyond the letter of the law”.‟ (Rabbi Yehoshua ben Alexander HaCohen Falk, Drisha, on Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher, Arba‟ah Turim, Hoshen Mishpat 1, 2 [75]).

The close relationship between the law and justice also finds expression in our case-law. In FH 22/73 Ben-Shahar v. Mahlav [12], at p. 96, it was held —

contrary to the law in England and the United States — that a litigant should be exempted from complying with his undertaking under a consent judgment, as long as he is in a condition of helplessness. This is what Justice Berinson wrote:

„In Israel, perhaps more than with any other people, law and justice are synonyms, and the concept of just law is very deeply rooted in the nation‟s conscience…

Counsel for the petitioner also referred to the well-known expression that “hard cases make bad law”, since, according to him, in this case, in order to grant relief to the respondent who is in distress, the court innovated a far-reaching rule giving it discretionary power far beyond what courts have appropriated for themselves hitherto, or what has been given to them under any legislation. To this a reply can be made in the words of Lord Blackburn in River Wear Commissioners v. Adamson (1877) 2 App. Cas. 743, 770, that “this is a bad law making hard cases”. I cannot believe that our law is so bad that it cannot help a respondent in great distress that befell him after judgment was given.‟

And in his remarks when retiring from the judiciary, Justice Berinson emphasized:

„… The law and justice are one, if you make proper use and interpretation of the law. Law is law if it is just law… and I have always found that justice is within reach if you wholeheartedly wish to reach it…‟ („Remarks made by Justice Berinson on his Retirement from the Judiciary‟, 8 Mishpatim (1977) 3, 5).

See also I. Zamir, „In Honour of Justice Zvi Berinson‟, 2 Mishpat Umimshal (1994) 325, 327-330.

6.            The issue before us arises because of scientific advances. Human biology, on one hand, and the right of a person to control his body, on the other hand, had hitherto established clear limits for the rights of husband and wife. Until the stage of pregnancy, each of the spouses is free to engage in sexual relations for the purpose of procreation or to refuse to engage in such relations, but from that stage on, the right of the wife carrying the embryo in her womb overrides the right of the husband, in so far as this concerns the relationship between them, and the decision to continue the pregnancy or terminate  it  is  hers,  and  the  husband —  unlike  the  statutory  committee

empowered to approve the termination of pregnancy — is not entitled to force his will on her. See sections 314-316 of the Penal Law; CA 413/80 A v. B [9], at p. 67.

Scientific-technological advances today allow couples that cannot have children naturally to bring children into the world. The ability of the spouses to interfere in the procreation process, which is being carried out with innovative methods, to influence it and even to stop it has increased. In consequence, the position of the law and its involvement in the disputes surrounding the  use of the  new procreation techniques are sought  more frequently. New areas have even been created where the intervention of the law is required.

The legal issues that are arising are new and fundamental. They involve many principles and factors, from which we must, in a careful process of evaluation, ascertain the correct and fair rules that should be applied. In the words of Justice Witkon in CA 461/62 Zim Israeli Shipping Co. Ltd v. Maziar [13], at p. 1337 {138}:

„… As with most problems in law and in life in general, it is not the choice between good and bad that makes our decision difficult. The difficulty is in choosing between various considerations, all of which are good and deserving of attention, but which conflict with one other, and we must determine which will take precedence.‟

Had the matter before us been governed by an established rule of law, the court would be obliged to interpret it in a way consistent with other principles of the legal system and consistent with the demands of justice. When no such rule exists, the principles of law and justice can operate together to establish the appropriate rule.

7.            In the case before us, we need to balance between the right to be a parent and the right not to be a parent. Today, in cases where couples require a „surrogate‟ mother who will carry their embryo in her womb, the balance is achieved within the framework of the Surrogacy Agreements (Approval of Agreement and Status of the Child) Law (hereafter — „the Agreements Law‟). The Agreements Law restricts the couple‟s autonomy and allows a

„surrogate‟ to be used only if a written agreement is made between the woman intended to carry the embryo and the prospective parents, and that agreement is approved by the Statutory Committee (section 2(1) of the Agreements Law).

A „surrogacy‟ agreement is therefore not absolutely binding. An agreement made under the Agreements Law is not an ordinary contract. As long as the fertilized ovum has not been implanted in the body of the woman intended to carry the embryos, she is entitled, and the two spouses (jointly) are entitled, to be released from the agreement. Even the statutory committee may stop the fertility procedure as long as the ovum has not been implanted. Nonetheless, neither of the spouses — without the consent of the other — has the power to prevent the implantation after the ovum has been fertilized. Stopping the procedure at this stage requires approval of the statutory committee.

8.            The Agreements Law, which, as aforesaid, was enacted only recently, does not apply to the case before us. The parties also did not make a formal agreement between them. But this has no significance, since, in my opinion, even according to the legal position before the Agreements Law, an agreement with regard to having children is not a contract. Couples are presumed not to be interested in applying the law of contracts to matters of this kind. This presumption has not been rebutted in our case. In any event, even were it proved that the parties had such an intention, they still did not have the power to give the agreement between them the force of a contract, since making a contract to have children is contrary to public policy. Therefore, the contract is void under sections 30 and 31 of the Contracts (General Part) Law, 5733-1973. Note that there is nothing improper in the purpose of the agreement — bringing children into the world — or the means of carrying out the agreement. The impropriety lies in the application of the law of contracts to the agreement, which is contrary to public policy. See and compare D. Freedman, N. Cohen, Contracts, Aviram, vol. 1, 1991, at p. 326;

A. Bendor, „The Law of Political Agreements‟, 3 Mishpat Umimshal (1995) 297, 316.

However, the fact that an agreement to have children is not a contract does not entirely negate the legal significance of the agreement or even of a representation with regard to consent. This is because, within the framework of balancing between the rights of the parties, there are reasons to take into account also the existence of an agreement between them or the existence of a representation with regard to consent. An agreement, like a representation, may lead to expectations and even reliance. These must be taken into account among the other factors affecting the balance. Cf. A. Barak, „Protected Human Rights and Private Law‟, Klinghoffer Book on Public Law (The

Harry  and  Michael  Sacher  Institute  for  Research  of  Legislation  and Comparative Law), I. Zamir ed., 1993) 163, 169.

It would seem that this principle also applies today with regard to the discretion of the committee acting under the Agreements Law to prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum in the body of a „surrogate‟. We may assume that in many cases the committee will consider the matter at the request of one of the spouses. By exercising the discretion given to it, the committee will take into account, inter alia, any expectation or reliance that the agreement created in the other spouse.

9.            In a conflict between the right of the husband and the right of the wife, the two have equal status with regard to their relationship to the fertilized ova, which contains their joint genetic material. Moreover, I do not think that we should distinguish between a man and a woman with regard to their yearning for parenthood. The proper balance between the rights of the two is therefore unaffected by the sex of the spouse who wants the ova be implanted, or of the spouse opposing this.

One can conceive of three main ways of balancing between the rights of the spouses after the woman‟s ovum has been fertilized with the man‟s sperm and they do not agree upon its implantation in the womb of a „surrogate‟ mother. These are as follows:

The first way, which was the majority opinion in the Nahmani appeal, is to prefer always the spouse who does not want to be a parent. This absolute preference is based on the principle of the autonomy of the individual, which rejects the coercion of parenthood. According to this principle, an agreement to bring children into the world should be regarded as a weak agreement, whose existence — until the implantation of the ova — is conditional on the consent of both spouses. Enforcement of such an agreement will violate a basic human right, and therefore is contrary to public policy. This position has some support in one of two judgments in the United States that considered the issue before us. In Davis v. Davis [47], where the judgment was given by the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee, it was held that, as a rule, the right not to be a parent should be preferred. Nonetheless, it was held that this rule would not apply in a case where preference of the right not to be a parent would deprive the other spouse absolutely and finally of the possibility of being a parent. Justice Daughtrey wrote as follows, at p. 604:

„Ordinarily,  the  party  wishing  to  avoid  procreation  should prevail,   assuming   that   the   other   party   has   a   reasonable

possibility of achieving parenthood by means other than the use of the preembryos in question. If no other reasonable alternatives exist, then the argument in favor of using the preembryos to achieve pregnancy should be considered…

… the rule does not contemplate the creation of an automatic veto…‟.

The second way, upon which the approach of my colleague, Justice Kedmi, is based, supports a preference, in all circumstances, of the right to parenthood. This approach is based on the outlook that the point of no-return is not implantation of the ovum in the body of the „surrogate‟, but fertilization of the ovum, which is what creates a new entity. This approach has support in the second American ruling that exists on the question before us, Kass v. Kass [51], which was given by a trial court in the State of New York. In this judgment it was held that a stipulation in an agreement made by the spouses, which said that if they did not reach agreement on how to deal with the fertilized ova they would be used for research, should not be regarded as a waiver by the woman of her right to parenthood. The court disagreed with the ruling in Davis v. Davis, and it held that there was no basis for distinguishing between in-vitro fertilization of an ovum and fertilization of the ovum in the body of the woman, and in both cases, once fertilization has occurred, the husband cannot impose a veto on the continuation of the procedure. Justice Roncallo wrote as follows:

„In my opinion there is no legal, ethical or logical reason why an in vitro fertilization should give rise to additional rights on the part of the husband. From a propositional standpoint it matters little whether the ovum/sperm union takes place in the private darkness of a fallopian tube or the public glare of a petri dish. Fertilization is fertilization and fertilization of the ovum is the inception of the reproductive process. Biological life exists from that moment forward… To deny a husband rights while an embryo develops in the womb and grant a right to destroy while it is in a hospital freezer is to favor situs over substance.‟

The third way, which my colleague Justice Tal advocates, is to balance the rights of the specific parties. In my opinion, this is the correct way, because balancing rights on an abstract level may lead to unjust results. This was discussed by Justice Holmes of the Supreme Court of the United States in Lochner v. New York (1905) [55], at p. 547:

„General propositions do not decide concrete cases. The decision will depend on a judgment or intuition more subtle than any articulate major premise.‟

Of course, even a balancing of this kind is not an ad hoc balancing without any guiding principles, but it is made on the basis of rules that are applied to the special circumstances of each case.

This method of balancing — according to which, in our case, the woman‟s right is preferable — was proposed also in three articles written as a result of the Nahmani appeal. See Marmor, „The Frozen Embryos of the Nahmani Couple: a Response to Chaim Gans‟, supra; Barak-Erez, „On Symmetry and Neutrality: Reflections on the Nahmani Case‟, supra; S. Davidov-Motola, „A Feminist Judgment? A Further Aspect of the Nahmani Case‟, 20 Iyunei Mishpat (1996) 221.

10.          Freedom in it fullest sense is not merely freedom from external interference of the government or others. It also includes a person‟s ability to direct his lifestyle, to realize his basic desires, and to choose from a variety of possibilities by exercising discretion. In human society, one of the strongest expressions of an aspiration without which many will not regard themselves as free in the fullest sense of the word is the aspiration to parenthood. We are not speaking merely of  a natural-biological need. We are speaking of a freedom which, in human society, symbolizes the uniqueness of man. „Any person who does not have children is considered as a dead person‟ said Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Nedarim, 64b [76]). Indeed, whether man or woman, most people regard having children as an existential necessity that gives meaning to their lives.

11.          Against this basic right, which constitutes a central element in the definition of humanity, we must consider the right not to be a parent. The basis of the right not to be a parent is the individual‟s autonomy not to suffer interference of the government in his privacy. This was discussed by Justice Brennan in Eisenstadt v. Baird [49], at p. 453:

„If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.‟

In the conflict of rights before us we are not speaking of relations between the individual and the government, but of relations within the framework of the family unit. Although the autonomy of the individual is also recognized

within the framework of the family, it seems to me that the right of privacy from the government is in general of greater weight than the right of privacy in the family. In the case before us, the husband does not even insist on his right for reasons of principle that oppose bringing children into the world. After all, he has a daughter from another woman, and he wanted that daughter. His argument is against a parenthood specifically with regard to an embryo created in the fertility procedure that the parties underwent. Moreover, the husband has declared that his objection to parenthood does not derive from a fear of the personal and financial burdens involved. Therefore, the interest not to be liable for personal and financial obligations towards a child born against the parent‟s wishes, which might be a relevant consideration when balancing the interests as a rule, is not relevant in this case.

What, then, is the importance of the freedom expressed in a person‟s knowing that he does not have in the world a child that he does not want? It seems to me that for both men and women this freedom is regarded as limited, conditional, and in essence secondary compared to the right to have children and to create the next generation.

In so far as a man is concerned, once a woman has been impregnated by a man, he has no power to force her to have an abortion even when he is not interested in a child. In so far as a woman is concerned, as a rule she is not entitled to have an abortion. Abortion is permitted only on the basis of a permit from a statutory committee given according to a closed list of grounds. The mere fact that the woman does not want a child is not one of the reasons on the list. A fundamental principle, which applies to both women and men, is therefore that once a woman becomes pregnant, neither she nor her spouse have a right not to be parents.

Another basic principle is that the right of a man or a woman to be a parent does not override the right of the spouses to control over their body, and it does not impose on them positive duties to participate in a procedure that may lead to parenthood.

Subject to these fundamental principles, the balance between the rights of the spouses will be made in each case by taking into account the current stage of the procedure, the representations made by the spouses, the expectations raised by the representations and any reliance on them, and the alternatives that exist for realizing the right of parenthood. I will discuss these considerations in this order.

12.          The current stage of the procedure: The more advanced the stage of the fertilization procedure, the greater the weight of the right to be a parent. As aforesaid, the right to be a parent and the right not to be a parent are subject to a person‟s right over his body, and in no case can one spouse be compelled to undergo a physical act to realize the right of the other spouse. The situation is different in circumstances where the realization of the right to be a parent does not involve a violation of the other spouse over his body. In our case, it can be said that the right to be a parent has begun the journey from theory to practice, and it is not merely a yearning. On the other hand, the ovum has not yet been implanted, and there is no absolute obstacle to terminating the procedure.

13.          Representations, expectations and reliances: Estoppel by representation prevents a party from denying a representation that he made to another party, if that party relied on the representation reasonably and in good faith and in consequence adversely changed his position. In Israeli law, the doctrine of estoppel — which we received from English law — can be regarded as a facet of the principle of good faith, which is a basic principle in our legal system. See LCA 4298/92 Ezra v. Tel-Mond Local Council [14]. In this regard, the following remarks were written in a review of the judgment in Davis v. Davis:

„… the doctrine of reliance should be applied to resolve a dispute between the gamete providers. The consistent application of a reliance-based theory of contract law to enforce promises to reproduce through IVF will enable IVF participants to asset control over their reproductive choices by enabling them to anticipate their rights and duties, and to know with reasonable certainty that their expectations will be enforced by the courts.‟ (C. D. Ahmen, Comment, „Disputes Over Frozen Embryos: Who Wins, Who Loses, and How Do We Decide?‟ 24 Creighton L. R. (1990-91) 1299, 1302, 1303).

Nonetheless, in my view, the decision between the rights of the parties is not be based on estoppel alone. Representations made by one spouse to another (including their making an agreement) may be a factor in the balance between the rights of the parties, when they created reliances and sometimes even mere expectations. A similar position was adopted in another article reviewing the judgment in Davis v. Davis [47], where it was written:

„One fact is of vital importance in making this judgment: the spouse who opposes implantation wanted a child at one time and

submitted to the IVF process with that end in mind… the greater injustice would be to deny implantation to the spouse who detrimentally relied on the other‟s words and conduct‟ (Panitch,

„The Davis Dilemma; How to Prevent Battles Over Frozen Preembryos‟, supra, at p. 547).

In our case, as a result of the husband‟s consent to the procedure, including his encouraging the wife to undergo the limited surgery and the fertilization, the wife underwent difficult fertility treatment with his sperm and did not need, for example, an anonymous sperm donation. In his article

„The Frozen Embryos of the Nahmani Couple: a Response to Chaim Gans‟,

supra, Dr. Marmor discusses this, at p. 445:

„By agreeing to begin the fertility and surrogacy procedures, and even more by his conduct during the initial stages of the procedure, there is no doubt that Daniel Nahmani made a representation towards his wife, from which she could conclude that he had no intention of stopping them; there is also no doubt that as a result of this representation, and relying on it reasonably and in good faith, Ruth adversely changed her position, by beginning the procedures with him (and not, as aforesaid, with an anonymous sperm donation).‟

Similar comments were written by Dr Barak-Erez, „On Symmetry and Neutrality: Reflections on the Nahmani Case‟, supra, at p. 215, and Ms Davidov-Motola, „A Feminist Judgment? A Further Aspect of the Nahmani Case‟, supra, at p. 299.

This adverse change in the wife‟s position is a major consideration in the balance of interests between the spouses, even if it has not been proved that the husband wanted to become the father of the wife‟s child even if they separate.

14.          Possible Alternatives: A case of refusal to continue a fertility procedure when the spouse can perform it with another partner is not the same as a case where refusal will doom the other spouse to childlessness. The fewer the alternatives available to the spouse wishing to become a parent, the greater the need to protect his right to parenthood, even at the expense of trespassing on the rights of the other spouse. As stated, this was the approach of the court in Davis v. Davis [47]. Prof. Robertson adopted a similar approach:

„If the right to reproduce and the right to reproduction are in conflict, favoring reproduction is not unreasonable when there is no alternative way for one party to reproduce‟ (J. A. Robertson,

„Prior Agreements for Disposition Of Frozen Embryos‟, 51 Ohio St. L. J. (1990) 407, 420).

This consideration in our case has an additional weight of justice, since the spouse who is not interested in continuing the procedure — the husband — has been blessed with a daughter of his own in another family that he has established.

15.          In our case, the basic principles and considerations which I have mentioned therefore lead to a preference of the wife to be a parent over the right of the husband not to be a parent. As stated, I do not believe that women and men attach different degrees of importance to having children. Therefore, were the positions reversed and were the man, in similar circumstances, to want to continue the procedure and were the woman to refuse, the result I have reached — namely, allowing the implantation of the frozen ova in the womb of a „surrogate‟ mother — would not be different.

I have read the opinion of my colleague Justice Goldberg, and I agree with his remarks (except for what he says in paragraph 5 of his opinion with regard to the scope of the powers of the committee acting under the Agreements Law, a question that does not need to be decided in this case).

My opinion, therefore, is that the petition should be granted, the judgment in the Nahmani appeal should be cancelled, and the judgment of the District Court should be reinstated.

In the Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice

                                                                                                                          HCJ 5771/12

Before:                                    The Honorable President A. Grunis

                                    The Honorable Deputy President M. Naor

                                    The Honorable Justice (Ret.) E. Arbel

The Honorable Justice E. Rubinstein

The Honorable Justice S. Joubran

The Honorable Justice E. Hayut

The Honorable Justice H. Melcer

The Petitioners:

1. Liat Moshe
2. Dana Glisko

                                    versus

The Respondents:

1. The Board for Approval of Embryo Carrying Agreements under the Embryo Carrying Agreements  Law (Approval of the Agreement and the Status of the Child), 5756-1996
2. The Ministry of Health
3. Knesset of Israel

                                    Response to Order Nisi

Date of sessions:         8th Tishrei 5773; September 24, 2012

                                    5th Kislev 5773; November 19, 2012

                                    18th Iyar 5773; April 28, 2013

                                    14th Elul 5773; August 20, 2013

Adv. Yehuda Resler; Adv. Amir Rosencrantz

                                    on behalf of the Petitioners

Adv. Nahi Ben Or; Adv. Dana Briskman

                                    on behalf of the First and Second Respondents

Adv. Gur Blai

                                    on behalf of the Third Respondent

Justice A. Hayut

The Petitioners are a couple who wish to bring offspring into the world by fertilizing an egg taken from the body of the First Petitioner and implanted in the womb of the Second Petitioner, who will carry the pregnancy and give birth. The Ministry of Health rejected their requests for the necessary authorizations to execute this and therefore filed the petition, which in its amended form challenges different provisions in the Embryo Carrying Agreements Law (Approval  of the Agreement and the Status of the Child), 5756-1996 (hereinafter: the Surrogacy Law) and the Eggs Donation Law 5770-2010 (Hereinafter: the Eggs Donation Law.)

                  After two hearings in the petition that were held before a panel of three Justices, an  order nisi was issued for the amended petition and it was decided that the hearing for the Respondents’ response would be held before an extended panel. The extended panel heard two hearings and after the second hearing, held on August 20, 2013, a decision rejecting the petition was given without reasons. This was done in order to permit the petitioners to plan their steps and to decide whether to accept the partial solution proposed by the Respondents – which I detail below – and because of the concern that the passing of time may adversely impact the chances of success for the medical procedure that could be done under such proposal (among others, due to the age of the First Petitioner, who is about forty one years old.) Therefore, on September 1, 2013 a decision without reasons that rejects the petition by a majority of the panel (President A. Grunis, Deputy President M. Naor, Justice E. Rubinstein and Justice S. Joubran) and against the dissenting position of Justice E. Arbel, Justice H. Melcer and my own was handed down. Below are detailed the reasons at the base of my dissenting opinion, as noted.

The Factual Background

1. The First Petitioner, Liat Moshe (hereinafter: Liat) was born in 1972 and serves as an officer in the IDF at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. The Second Petitioner, Dana Glisko (hereinafter: Dana) was born in 1983 and the two have been living together as a couple for about ten years. They even signed a “prenuptial agreement” and a “common law marriage agreement” and drafted mutual wills. Since 2007 the two have attempted to bring a child into the world. For this purpose, during the years 2007-2008 Liat underwent artificial inseminations and hormone treatments, but these have been unsuccessful. Similarly, treatments Liat underwent in 2008-2012 for in vitro fertilization of eggs extracted from her body and then implanted have sadly failed as well.  Medical tests on Liat have not diagnosed a cause for the failure of the many fertilization treatments she had underwent, and the reason may be that her uterus may be unable to carry a pregnancy. Such repeated failures have not weakened Liat’s spirit and she wishes with all her might to bring a child into the world from her own eggs. As a last resort, the couple has tried to bring a child into the world by extracting an egg from Liat’s body, fertilizing it and implanting it in Dana’s uterus, so that Dana would carry the pregnancy and give birth. In such a way, the two emphasize, the child would be “genetically and physically connected to them both.”
2. Only it quickly became clear to the couple that realizing their wish to bring a child into the world in the described method may implicate them and the treating physician, who would perform the necessary medical procedure, in illegal conduct and a criminal sanction. In February 2012, Liat wrote to the Ministry of Health’s Legal Advisor and requested to permit her to donate eggs to her partner, Dana, after their in vitro fertilization. This request relied on earlier decisions by the Ministry of Health that permitted such medical procedure in the past and paved the way, at least in one case, for eggs donations between a female couple. On February 26, 2012 the Ministry of Health’s Legal Advisor, Advocate M. Hivner-Harel, that the procedure requested by the couple is contrary to the Eggs Donation Law, which was passed in 2010, because according to this law eggs donation may be approved only for a woman who may not become pregnant with her own eggs due to a medical problem, or who has a different medical problem that justifies using eggs that are not hers in order to have a child (a condition established in section 11 of the Law.) in this case, Dana – who is intended to receive the eggs donation from Liat – does not suffer, as far as we know, from a medical problem and thus their request is denied.

Liat and Dana did not give up and turned to the national supervisor for surrogacy issues in the Ministry of Health and requested to be permitted to undergo a procedure where Dana would serve as surrogate and carry an embryo from Liat’s fertilized eggs. This request came after in May 2012 the recommendations of the public committee formed by the Ministry of Health to examine legislative regulation of the issue of fertilization and birth in Israel, headed by Professor Shlomo Mor Yossef (hereinafter: the Mor Yossef Committee) were published. The Mor Yossef Committee report concerns, among others, the issue of surrogacy in Israel. Among the Committee’s recommendation was the recommendation to expand the circle of those eligible to undergo a procedure of bringing an offspring into the world via surrogacy that would include also “a single woman who has a medical problem that prevents carrying a pregnancy.” This request by Liat was also denied for the reason that the Surrogacy Law in its current language only permits “intended parents” (defined in section 1 of the law as “a man and a woman who are a couple”) to enter an agreement for embryo carrying with a “carrying mother” whose relationship with the child is severed after the birth. The national supervisor for surrogacy added in her response that a team appointed by the Ministry of Health to explore and implement the Mor Yossef Committee recommendations had yet to complete its work and therefore it was impossible at the time to accept Liat’s request. In light of this and in light of Liat’s age (who at the time had already turned forty years old) – this petition was filed.

The Legal Framework

3.  In their amended petition, the couple relies on two alternative legal paths. First, an interpretation of the Surrogacy Law, or judicial intervention in its provisions on a constitutional basis, that would allow the requested procedure through surrogacy where by Dana would serve as the “carrying mother” for Liat’s fertilized eggs. The second – judicial intervention on a constitutional basis in the Eggs Donation Law and striking down some of its provisions that bar Liat’s eggs donation to Dana. Before we detail the parties’ arguments and the different developments that occurred since the petition was submitted we briefly present the arrangements established in each of the above laws and the obstacles they each present to the couple when they wish to undergo the desired procedure.
4. The Surrogacy Law was passed in 1996 following a report by a public professional committee headed by District Court Judge (Ret.) Shaul Aloni, which in 1994 recommended to permit entering into agreements for carrying embryo  in Israel while regulating the issue in primary legislation. In 1995, before the Law was passed, this Court struck down regulations 11 and 13 of the People’s Health Regulations (In Vitro Fertilization), 5747-1987 (hereinafter: the Fertilization Regulations,) which prohibited implanting a fertilized egg in a woman who would not be the child’s mother as well as prohibited the implantation of an egg taken from a donor unless it was fertilized with the sperm of the woman’s husband (see: HCJ 5087/94, Zebro v. The Minister of Health (July 17, 1995); for detailed discussion of the background for the Law’s legislations, see HCJ 2458/01, New Family v. The Committee for Approval of Embryo Carrying Agreements, The Ministry of Health, IsrSC 57(1) 419, 431-35 (2002) (hereinafter: the New Family case; see also the Embryo Carrying Agreements Bill (Approving Agreements and Status of the Child), 5756-1996, Bills 2456.) as reflected from the explanatory notes  of the Bill, the Surrogacy Law was designed to permit agreements for carrying embryo in Israel “under certain conditions and in a supervised manner.” According to section 1 of the Surrogacy Law, an agreement for carrying an embryo  is made between “intended parents” – who are defined in section 1 as “a man and a woman who are a couple” – and a “carrying mother” who agrees to become pregnant through the implantation of a fertilized egg in her body and to carry a pregnancy for the intended parents. Under section 2 of the Surrogacy Law, the implantation of a fertilized egg in order to impregnate a carrying mother in order to give the child to the intended parents is contingent upon the existence of several conjunctive conditions, including the drafting of a written agreement between the intended parents and the carrying mother, the approval of the agreement by the approving board mentioned in section 3 of the Law, and meeting several additional threshold conditions such as the lack of familial relationships between one of the intended parents and the carrying mother (see HCJ 625/10, Jane Doe v. The Board for Approval of Embryo Carrying Agreements under the Agreements Act, paras. 12-16 (July 26, 2011)). As a rule – except for exceptional cases where the carrying mother wishes to withdraw her  embryo carrying agreement and keep the child under the circumstances detailed in section 13 of the Surrogacy Law – the carrying mother gives the child to the intended parents after the birth, and after a parenting order is issued, they are considered the child’s parents “for all intents and purposes” (section 12 of the surrogacy Law.)

Section 7 of the Surrogacy Law, titled “Performing an Embryo Carrying Agreement” prohibits performing a surrogacy procedure outside of the path and conditions established by the law, as follows:

“An in vitro fertilization and implantation of a fertilized egg shall not be performed except for at a recognized department and on the basis of an agreement for carrying an embryo , which was approved as detailed.”

Section 19(a) of the Surrogacy Law adds a criminal provision whereby anyone implanting a fertilized egg in order to impregnate a carrying mother with the purpose of giving the child not according to the provisions of the law is punishable by one year imprisonment. Therefore the Surrogacy Law creates an arrangement for how agreements for carrying embryo in Israel must be entered into and performed, and under its provisions as detailed above a surrogacy procedure that is inconsistent with its detailed directions cannot be done in Israel (see the New Family case, 438-39.)

5. The Eggs Donation Law, which was passed in 2010, about 14 years after the Surrogacy Law was passed, was designed to “regulate the different aspects involved in extracting and donating eggs in Israel, and the use of such eggs” (see the explanatory notes to the Eggs Donation Bill, 5767-2007, Government Bills 289.) Until the law was passed the possibility to donate eggs in Israel was regulated in the Fertilization Regulations. According to those, it was possible to extract eggs only from a woman who was under medical treatment due to infertility problems if the supervising physician determined that extracting the eggs would advance her treatment. In light of this restriction on the pool of donors, Israel saw a dire shortage of eggs for donation and women who required eggs donation were required to travel to far away countries in order to receive a donation there. The Fertilization Regulations even set various restrictions on the possibility of women to receive eggs donation. For instance, the regulations established that a single woman would not be implanted with a fertilized egg unless the egg is hers and a report from a social worker to support her wishes has been secured. The Eggs Donation Law was meant to expand the circle of donor women to include – alongside the “treated” women (women requiring medical care involved in extracting eggs from their bodies for their own use, and intending the remaining eggs for donation) – also “volunteer donors,” who do not undergo fertilization treatments or other treatments involving extracting eggs from their bodies. Additionally, the Law lifted the restriction on receiving eggs donation that the Fertilization Regulations imposed upon single women.

At the background of the law’s legislation was a painful incident where a doctor was convicted in disciplinary proceedings for a high dosage of hormones he gave women to whom he provided fertility treatments in order to produce a high number of eggs and intend them for treating other women’s infertility. This was done without securing the consent of these women or notifying them (see: the Mor Yossef Committee Report, p. 38; Smadar Kanyun, Eggs Donation – Social, Ethical and Legal Aspects, Medicine and Law 35, 145, 164 (2006); minutes of the 17^th Knesset’s Labor, Welfare and Health Committee meeting, dated February 18, 2008, p. 2.) One of the purposes the law was designed to achieve, aside from expanding the circle of donor women, was then responding to the concern over the trade in eggs and over the exploitation and disrespect for women’s bodies (see minutes of the 17^th Knesset’s Labor, Welfare and Health Committee meeting, dated March 4, 2008, p. 10-12.) therefore the law established various restrictions as to the maximum number of donations that may be received from the same woman and as to the frequency of extraction of eggs from her body; duties regarding the information that must be given to the donating woman and securing her consent for performing procedures in the eggs extracted from her body; and a prohibition on trade in eggs (see articles A and B of the Eggs Donation Law.) Additionally, section 4 of the Eggs Donation Law establishes the exclusivity of the law’s provisions, as such:

“(a) One shall not perform an eggs extraction from a donor, lab treatment of the eggs, allocation of eggs for implantation or research, or implantation of eggs, but according to this law’s provisions.

(b) The provisions of sub-section (a) shall not apply to the extraction of eggs from the body of an intended mother, to the lab treatment of eggs extracted as such and to their implantation in the body of a carrying mother for the purposes of performing an agreement for carrying embryo according to the Agreements Law.”

Therefore, a procedure of extracting eggs from a donor woman and implanting them in the woman who receive the donation is subject to the provisions of the Eggs Donation Law and performing this inconsistently with these provisions is prohibited unless it is done under an agreement for carrying embryo that was entered into according to the Surrogacy Law.

6. Section 12 of the Eggs Donation Law requires the authorization of a special approving board of six members (hereinafter: the approving board) in order to extract eggs from a “volunteer donor.” The approving board is charged with examining the request of a volunteer donor in order to ensure that the intended procedure meets all the conditions detailed in section 12(f) of the Act, and they are:

“(1) The donor is a resident of Israel who is over the age of 21 but is not yet 35;

(2) The donor is not legally incompetent, under guardianship, under arrest or incarcerated;

(3) The donor had signed, before the approving board, a form as instructed by the administration, which includes the information form and her consent to extracting the eggs for their implantation;

(4) The approving board is satisfied that the donor’s consent is given with a sound mind, out of free will, and not out of family, social, economic or other pressure; and in regard to a donor who intended in advance the eggs extracted from her body to a specific recipient – that her consent was given not for financial reward or any other reward, directly or indirectly, from the recipient or her representative; and it may summon for such purposes the recipient, should the eggs be intended to a particular recipient, or any other person as it sees fit.”

In this context the petitioners are seemingly already faced with an obstacle because Liat – the intended donor – was born in 1972 where section 12(f)(1) of the law sets an age limit. However in light of the medical difficulties Liat faced and the many treatments she went through, she may be considered a “treated donor” whose eggs are extracted from her body in the course of medical treatments conducted for her own benefit. Therefore, and under the provision of section 15 of the Eggs Donation law, she is not required to secure the authorization of the approving board for the extraction of her eggs and is thus not subject to such age restrictions.

7. The main relevant restriction here is the restriction on a receiving woman established in section 11 of the Eggs Donation Law. Under this section, only a woman who suffers from a medical condition that prevents her from being impregnated with the eggs in her body or from a medical condition that justifies using another woman’s eggs in order to have a child, may apply to receive an eggs donation. This section stipulates as follows:

“Once a treating physician discovers that a patient who is a resident of Israel who is over the age of 18 but is not yet 54 years old, is incapable of becoming pregnant with eggs in her body due to a medical condition, or that she has another medical condition that justifies using the eggs of another woman in order to have a child, including by implanting the eggs in a carrying mother under the Agreements Law, the physician shall notify the patient that she may apply for an eggs donation. Such an application shall be submitted with the supervising doctor according to the form instructed by the Administration.”

This provision seemingly prevents the petitioning couple to realize their wishes, as it stipulates that in order to receive an eggs donation the receiving woman must present a medical need for the donation, whereas in our case, Dana – the intended recipient – does not suffer, as far as we know, from any medical condition that prevents her from becoming pregnant with the eggs in her body or that justifies using another woman’s eggs to have a child. Liat – who wishes to donate her eggs – is the one who suffers from a medical condition that prevents her from becoming pregnant with the eggs in her body. Section 13 of the law adds the condition that the implantation of the eggs in the receiving woman’s body must be approved by the “supervising doctor” as defined in the law. Under this section the supervising doctor must make sure that, among others, the receiving woman indeed does suffer from a medical condition that justifies the implantation of the eggs in her uterus (section 13(e)(2)). Additionally, the doctor must receive confirmation from the database established under the law that the conditions set in section 13(e)(3), which include the condition that the donor is of the same religion as the recipient and is not her family member and that the donor is not married, are met.

8. To this list of restrictions the provision in section 4(a) of the Eggs Donation Law must be added. This provision mandates, as discussed, the exclusivity of this law’s provisions whereby any procedure of extracting eggs from a donor, lab treatment of the eggs, allocating them and implanting them would be performed only under the provisions of the Law. Section 5 of the Eggs Donation Law adds a prohibition of taking out eggs that have been extracted in Israel – whether they are fertilized or not – for their implantation aboard, unless this was approved by a statutory exceptions committee and the intended implantation is in the body of the woman from whom the eggs were extracted. This section prevents the Petitioners to take eggs extracted from Liat’s body out of Israel to be implanted in Dana’s uterus. Additionally to all this, section 6(b) of the law mandates:

“An implantation of eggs shall not be performed but in the body of the recipient or the body of a carrying mother who entered into an agreement for carrying an embryo with the recipient according to the Agreements Law.”

Similarly to the Surrogacy Law, the legal arrangement established in the Eggs Donation Law, which we detailed above, is also supported by criminal provisions that establish criminal sanctions for an offense under the law’s provisions. Thus, for instance, performing an eggs implantation in a woman in violation of section 6(b) of the Act constitutes an offense punishable with six months incarceration or a fine (see section 41(b)(4) of the Eggs Donation Law.)

9. Still, Title C in Chapter C of the Eggs Donation Law authorizes the Minister of Health to convene a committee for exceptional cases, which would comprise of two doctors, a psychologist, a social worker, an attorney, and a clergy person (hereinafter: the exceptions committee.) The committee is charged with examining the approval of a procedure for eggs donation in particular cases which do not meet the conditions established by the Law. However, the authority of the exceptions committee is narrow and limited to permitting procedures in one of the four case as detailed in section 20(a) of the law:

(-) Approving extraction, allocation or implantation of eggs from a donor who designates, in advance, the eggs extracted from her body to a particular recipient. (section 20(a)(1));

(-) Approving extraction, allocation or implantation of eggs from a married donor (section 20(a)(2));

(-) Approving extraction, allocation or implantation of eggs from a donor who is not a member of the recipient’s religion (section 20(a)(3));

(-) Approving to take eggs outside of Israel in order to be implanted in the body of the woman from whom they were extracted (section 20(a)(4)).

The recipient woman or the “supervising physician” (as the latter is defined in the Eggs Donation Law) may approach the exceptions committee, and under section 21(c) of the law the committee may consider the factors detailed in section 22 of the law, which are:

1. The exceptions committee may approve the extraction, allocation of eggs for implantation or the implantation of eggs, when the recipient intends in advance the eggs extracted from her body to a particular recipient, when it is persuaded that the following has been met, as appropriate under the circumstances:

1. In terms of a donor who intends in advance the eggs extracted from her body to a particular recipient who is her family member – that there are religious reasons that justify such eggs donation.
2. In terms of a donor who intends in advance the eggs extracted from her body to a particular recipient who is not her family member – that there are religious or social reasons that justify such eggs donation.

2. The exceptions committee may approve the extraction, allocation of eggs for implantation or implantation of eggs when the donor is married, when it is satisfied that the following has been met, as appropriate under the circumstances:

1. In terms of a married donor who intends in advance the eggs extracted from her body to a particular recipient – that there are religious reasons that justify such eggs donation.
2. In terms of a married donor who does not intend in advance the eggs extracted from her body to a particular recipient – that the eggs extraction is required for their implantation in a particular recipient who, due to a shortage in suitable eggs from donors who are not married, cannot receive an eggs donation but for from a donor who is married.

3. The Exceptions committee may approve the extraction, allocation of eggs for implantation or extraction of eggs when the recipient is not a member of the donor’s religious and when the eggs have not intended in advance by the donor for a particular recipient, when the committee is satisfied that the recipient’s religion prohibits her from receiving a donation from a woman who is a member of her religion or due to a shortage of eggs from donors of her religion.
4. The exceptions committee may approve the taking of eggs extracted in Israel from a patient’s body for their implantation out of Israel, when it is satisfied that the eggs are intended to be implanted in her body and when there is justification for approving the implantation outside of Israel.

The provisions quoted above clearly express that the authority of the exceptions committee is limited to an exhausted list of the four cases detailed. They also clearly reflect that the matter of the Petitioners is not among these cases and thus approaching the exceptions committee would not be to their benefit. Given all this, the Ministry of Health’s legal advisor believed that the eggs donation route which they wished to take was not available to the Petitioners, which resulted in her response that:

“[…] According to the law, an eggs donation may only be approved for a woman who cannot become pregnant by her own eggs or who has another medical condition that justifies using the eggs of another woman in order to have a child.

According to your letter, your partner, Ms. Glisko, has no medical condition that justifies receiving an eggs donation. Therefore, regretfully, your request may not be approved.”

Developments Since The Petition Was Filed

10. In the amended petition, submitted on October 3, 2012, the Petitioners requested permission to execute their wishes, whether by striking down different provisions of the Surrogacy Law and the Eggs Donation Law or by interpreting the provisions of these statutes differently than the interpretation of the Ministry of Health. After holding a hearing for the amended petition on November 19, 2012 before a panel of three justices, an  order nisi was issued:

“Based on the petition brought before this Court today, the Court issues an order nisi for the Respondents and instructs them to present themselves and justify:

1. Why the Court should not order that the definition of ‘intended parents’ as in section 1 of the Embryo Carrying Agreements Law(Approval of  the Agreement and the Status of the Child), 5756-1996 (hereinafter: the Law) be struck down for unconstitutionality, and why the Court should not instruct the approving board as established by section 3 of the Law to discuss the Petitioners’ request to approve an agreement for carrying embryo on its merits;
2. Why the surrogacy arrangement established by the Law should not be interpreted to include also an arrangement where there is no obligation for disconnecting the ‘carrying mother’ and the child, and/or that it would be possible to perform in vitro fertilization and implantation of a fertilized egg outside of an agreement for carrying embryo between ‘intended parents’ and a ‘carrying mother,’ as defined in section 1 of the Law;
3. Why the Petitioners should not be permitted to perform a procedure of egg donation such that the First Petitioner would donate an egg to the Second Petitioner in order for it to be implanted in her uterus and fertilized according to the provisions of the Eggs Donation Law, 5770-2010 (hereinafter: the Eggs Donation Law);
4. Why the Court should not order that the exception in section 11 of the Eggs Donation Law, which restrict the possibility of Eggs Donation to cases where the recipient cannot become pregnant with her own eggs due to a medical condition, is struck down for being unconstitutional;
5. Why the language of section 11 of the Eggs Donation Law should not be amended so that the words ‘in a carrying mother’ be struck out of it.”

At the same time, and in an attempt to find a practical resolution for the Petitioners’ problem the Attorney General has been requested to notify the Court its position as to the legal procedures under the Eggs Donation Law that may be taken against the Petitioners or any medical professional, were they to perform in Israel any medical procedures in order to execute the medical process they wish to perform. It was also decided that as long as the Attorney General’s position is that under the circumstances such legal proceedings should not be initiated, there will be no longer a need for a response on behalf of the Respondents to the order nisi that was issued, and that should there be a need to hold a hearing in the response to the order nisi after the Attorney General’s position is received, it would be held before an expanded panel.

11. The Attorney General’s notice from December 26, 2012 stated that there is no possibility of declaring in advance that no legal proceedings would be initiated in terms of the described actions, which as to his understanding are not permitted under the Eggs Donation Law or the Surrogacy Law. The Attorney General explained his position as such: “There is an inherent difficulty to notifying in advance, in a notice that constitutes a pre-ruling of sorts that the general prosecution would refrain from enforcing the law on statutorily prohibited acts.” Thus the First and Second Respondents (hereinafter, jointly: the State) and the Third Respondents (hereinafter: the Knesset) filed response papers in the Petitions, and on April 28, 2013 a first hearing in the objections to the order nisi was held before an extended panel of seven Justices. During the hearing, the State’s lawyer noted that from the State’s perspective there is no restriction on the procedure of extracting Liat’s eggs, fertilizing them and freezing them but that until the necessary statutory amendments are passed they cannot be used to be implanted in Dana, as requested in the Petition (see page 6 of the hearing record dated April 28, 2013, l. 24-35.) The State’s lawyer also noted that the implementation team appointed by the Ministry of Health to examine the recommendations of the Mor Yossef Committee (hereinafter: the implementation team) is expected to complete its work soon and that after that the Minister of Health would consider the possibility of submitting statutory amendment proposals that may resolve the problem the Petitioners face. At the end of the hearing it was decided that the Respondents would submit update notices and on June 30, 2013 the State updated the Court that the implementation team was expected within several days to submit to the Minister of Health a document summarizing its work and that practical steps, including statutory amendments, were expected – according to the assessment of professional bodies – to be brought for discussion before the Knesset’s Labor, Welfare and Health Committee within six months. In an additional notice the State submitted on August 14, 2013 it stated that on July 21, 2013 the Ministry of Health issued a protocol for “taking sperm, eggs or fertilized eggs out from Israel” (hereinafter: the protocol) whose operative meaning, to the extent concerns us, is that the Petitioners would be able, subject to the authorization of the exceptions committee, to follow the route requested – that is to perform the implantation of Liat’s fertilized eggs in Dana’s womb – but to do so outside of Israel. As a result, and in order to flesh out the Petitioners’ position regarding the proposal raised, an additional hearing was held before the extended panel on August 20, 2013, but the Petitioners insisted that they wished to be able to perform the entire medical procedure in Israel. The Petitioners noted in this context the financial burden involved in performing the medical procedure out of Israel; the concern that performing the medical procedure out of Israel would reduce its prospects of success; as well as noted the various restrictions related to the fact that Liat is an officer in the IDF.

As all of the attempts to find a practical solution for the problem raised by the petition have failed, we were required to rule on the arguments the parties called upon us to do, and as noted on September 1, 2013 a judgment without reasons which rejects the petition by a majority was handed down.

The Parties’ Arguments

12.  The Petitioners argue that the arrangements established in the Surrogacy Law and the Eggs Donation Law, which bar them from performing the medical procedure where Liat’s fertilized eggs would be implanted in Dana’s body are arrangements that violate Liat’s right to be a genetic parent and which discriminate against her and Dana compared to other couples. In this context, the Petitioners raise arguments on a constitutional level and on an interpretive level challenging the provisions of the laws mentioned above, and in essence they argue that there is no public interest that must be protected and that justifies barring them from the possibility of conducting the medical procedure which they wish to go through.

To the extent that the petition concerns the Surrogacy Law, the Petitioners argue that the definition of the term “intended parents” in this law as “a man and a woman who are a couple,” is discriminatory and unconstitutional because it does not recognize same sex couples or single people as intended parents for purposes of surrogacy in Israel. The Petitioners rely here on a decision from 2002 in the New Family case, where it was noted that the definition of “intended parents” in the Surrogacy Law violates the principle of equality because it denies a woman who does not have a male partner the possibility to be an “intended mother.” The Petitioners argue that although in the New Family case the Court refrained from striking down the arrangements in the Surrogacy Law, but they believe this was only because the Surrogacy Law was a new statute at the time and because the experience necessary for its way of implementation was yet to be amassed. The Petitioners additionally argue that in the years that passed since the Surrogacy Law was enacted there have been developments in the willingness to recognize “nontraditional families” including same sex families raising children. They claim there is no relevant justification for differentiating between such families and heterosexual couples in terms of surrogacy procedures in Israel. The Petitioners add that the holding in New Family as to the unjustified discrimination created by the Surrogacy Law, creates an estoppel by record in our matter. In relying on the Mor Yossef Committee report, the Petitioners also argue that this report includes a recommendation to expand the circle of those eligible to conduct surrogacy procedures to include unmarried women or women who cannot carry a pregnancy due to a medical condition, and they argue that Liat falls under this recommendation. The Petitioners further argue that many of the concerns involved in the surrogacy process, including the surrogate’s distress after the birth and the concern over her exploitation, do not exist in this case since Dana – who is to serve as surrogate – is the “other half of the family unit into which the child would be brought.” The Petitioners add that striking down the definition of “intended parents” in section 1 of the Surrogacy Law would allow applying the law’s provisions to them, and this although the connection between surrogate carrying the pregnancy and the child would not be severed after birth. In this context the Petitioners note that the Surrogacy Law does not establish a requirement of disconnection between the surrogate and the child and that the separation required is from the “intended parents” and the “carrying mother” is a “secondary aspect” which serves a “secondary purpose” that is irrelevant to their extraordinary case.

As to the Eggs Donation Law, the Petitioners claim that this law was designed to regulate eggs donation while protecting the dignity, rights, and health of the donor woman and the recipient woman and to prevent trade in  eggs. The Petitioners emphasize that the eggs donation in their desired route is not expected to infringe upon any public interests or rights that the law was meant to protect. They also emphasize the case law whereby the State must not intervene in intimate events such as the decision whether and how to bring children into the world. The Petitioners add that the medical procedure they wish to undergo is the only one that ensures Liat can realize her right to parenthood in a way that allows for a genetic relationship with the child, and according to them since there is available suitable technology that enables her to realize that right on one hand and on the other there are no weighty considerations that justify it, they should not be barred from the option they wish to pursue. The Petitioners argue that the requirement of section 11 for the recipient woman’s “medical need” violates their right to parenthood and is inconsistent with the legal state that existed before the Eggs Donation Law was passed, whereby a female couple was permitted to donate eggs to one another. In this context, the Petitioners rely on Attorney General M. Mazuz’s guidelines from 2009 on the issue of eggs donation between a female couple (hereinafter: the Attorney General’s guidelines,) where it was noted that the eggs donation between a female couple must not be seen as an act that is violates the public policy and it must be permitted where appropriate. The Petitioners note that had they wished to do the opposite – that is, to extract Dana’s eggs, fertilize them and implant them in Liat’s uterus – the restriction in section 11 of the Eggs Donation Law would not have been an obstacle because, as noted, Liat suffers from a medical condition that prevents her from becoming pregnant and carrying a pregnancy with her own eggs. Therefore, in their view, their unique situation warrants a remedy that compels the statutory exceptions committee to discuss their request and to approve it. The Petitioners further argue that the Eggs Donation Law must be interpreted in a way that permits them to perform the desired procedure, or alternatively to strike down the exception in section 11 of the Eggs Donation Law. Moreover, the Petitioners maintain that, at the very least, the term “in a carrying mother” which appears in section 11 of the Eggs Donation Law must be deleted from the text, as – under their reading – it limits the implementation of the law’s provision in their case because it folds into it the discriminatory definition of “intended parents” from the Surrogacy Law.

13. The State argues, on the other hand, that though the sincerity of the Petitioners’ desires to realize their right to parenthood in the particular way they wish to follow, the Petition must be denied for lack of cause to intervene in the manner in which the relevant statutory provisions have been interpreted, as well as a lack of constitutional cause to strike down any of them. The State emphasized in its arguments that the Petitioners claims were made generally and that they did not point out to the specific constitutional rights that they maintain have been violated by the laws at the center of this Petition. Further, the State argues that the Petitioners have not proven the existence of an infringement at the core of the right to parenthood and have not shown why they should be permitted to exercise this right particularly in the one and only manner they desire and not in any other way.

That State also maintains that the procedure the Petitioners wish to perform attempts to create a new arrangement of what it terms as “genetic biological co-parenting” that does not at all fit the surrogacy institution as regulated in the Surrogacy Law, and thus the provisions of the Surrogacy Law cannot be applied to it. In this context, the State argues that at the foundation of the arrangements established by the Surrogacy Law is the separation between “the intended parents” and the “carrying mother” who enter into an agreement to carry embryo, as well as severing the relationship between the birthing woman and the child after the birth. However, the State further argues, Dana – who will serve as the carrying mother, according to the Petitioners’ request – is one of the intended mothers and there is no anticipated severing of the relationship between her and the child after the birth. The State claims that recognizing a surrogacy route under these circumstances may open the door for recognizing the surrogate as the mother of the child for all intents and purposes, which threatens the system of balances established in the Surrogacy Law and might harm in the future the child’s best interest and other interests. The State adds that the basic premise of the Surrogacy Law regarding the separation and severance as mentioned were at the basis of the opinion in New Family as well as at the basis of the Mor Yossef Committee’s recommendations, and thus the Petitioners cannot rely on these sources for supporting their position. The State maintains that even should the term “intended parents” be struck out of the Surrogacy Law for being unconstitutional, this would not assist the Petitioners, because their matter does not fall under the Surrogacy Law’s provisions to begin with. Beyond the necessary scope, the State argues that the proposal to change the term “intended parents” in the Surrogacy Law is now under consideration of the relevant bodies in the executive authority in preparation of bringing it before the Knesset. The State believes that completing the work of the implementation team and the legislature’s expected consideration of the amending the Surrogacy Law also support a restrained approach from the Court in terms of intervening in the provisions of the Surrogacy Law at this time.

As for the arguments raised about the constitutionality of the Eggs Donation Law, the State maintains that this is a relatively new statute – enacted in 2010 – and thus the Mor Yossef Commission also refrained from directly considering its provisions. The State adds that there should be no intervention in the limit established in section 11, which conditions egg donation upon the recipient’s medical need. This condition, according to the State, is worthy, reasonable and proportional and reflects the view that “an egg is not a ‘commodity’ – it cannot be traded, and considerations of autonomy and free will, in their ordinary sense, do not apply to it.” The State emphasizes that the “medical need” is a relevant characteristic of the Eggs Donation Law which is meant to protect the woman’s health, to ensure the child’s best interest, and to prevent the possibility that the mechanism of eggs donation would be used, for instance, due to the parents’ desire to have a “high-quality” child in the genetic sense. Therefore the State believes that should we hold that the arrangement in section 11 of the Law infringements upon any fundamental right, then this infringement meets the requirements of the Limitations Clause and it should not be struck down. The State further argues that the Petitioners’ request to require the exceptions committee to consider their matter is contrary to sections 20-22 of the Eggs Donation Law, which limits the discretion of the exceptions committee to limited cases and this is not one of them. The State also argues that accepting this argument would lead to a significant expansion of the exceptions committee’s authorities, against the instructions of the law provisions and against the legislature’s purpose that explicitly avoided granting the exceptions committee more extensive authorities, though according to the bill such a proposal was before it. The State further maintains that the Attorney General’s guideline from 2009 was issued under different circumstances than those arising in this case, and in any event, with the legislation of the Eggs Donation Law a comprehensive legislative response was provided to the issue of the eggs donation, which should not be strayed from. Furthermore the State argues that striking out the words “in a carrying mother” from section 11 of the Eggs Donation Law would not be of assistance to the petitioners and it may create uncertainty as to the possibility of women who received an eggs donation to implant them in a surrogate. Finally, the State claims that this case raises complex precedential issues in the area of fertilization and birth and as such it is best left to the Legislature, who is charged with developing clear rules according to social standards and broad policy considerations.

14. The Knesset, which was joined to the Petition in its amended version, concentrated its response on the constitutional arguments that the Petitioners raise and joined the State’s position in noting that these claims were made by the Petitioners in general and without meaningful substantiation; that the issue of fertilization and birth is a sensitive and complex issue that is best regulated by the Legislature; and that providing a singular solution to the Petitioners’ plight may threaten the stability of the comprehensive arrangement established in the relevant laws. Like the State, the Knesset, too, believes that there is no place to consider the arguments by the Petitioners in terms of the Surrogacy Law because the medical procedure they wish to perform does not fall under surrogacy and thus their arguments in this context – even were they to be accepted – to assist them. Furthermore, the Knesset argues that the Court should not currently intervene in the Surrogacy Law’s provisions because recommendations as to their amendments are on the Government’s agenda in preparation of bringing them before the Knesset.

In the Knesset’s approach, the constitutional protection at the base of the right to parenthood goes to the core of the right – that is the ability to bring children into the world – rather than in realizing the right in a particular way. Therefore, the Knesset argues that a healthy woman like Dana, who is able to realize her parenthood by using her own eggs, cannot be viewed as a holder of a constitutional right to receive an eggs donation in order to be pregnant by another woman’s eggs. The Knesset adds that although there is no “moral objection” to the route which the Petitioners wish to follow, the concern about striking down section 11 of the Law stems from the mere risk in the Court’s intervention in primary legislation in a way that may harm the system of balances between the branches of government in general and the delicate balances involved in the issue of eggs donation in particular. It was also argued that the restriction in section 11 of the Eggs Donation Law does not violate the right to equality, because it creates a reasonable and logical distinction that achieves the purpose of the law that is providing a solution to the recipient woman’s fertilization problems. In any event, the Knesset believes that the purpose of the requirement for medical justification established in section 11 is worthy and consistent with other legislative arrangements in the area of fertilization and birth; that this is a relatively limited restriction that requires that the recipient have some medical condition that warrants the use of another woman’s eggs in order to have a child (rather than specifically a medical condition that prevents her from becoming pregnant by her own eggs); and that the restriction goes to the fringes of the right to parent rather than its core. The Knesset argues further that the section that authorizes the exceptions committee to exercise the provisions of the Eggs Donation Law is not a “blanket section” but a limited section that accurately defines the scope of the committee’s powers. In this contest the Knesset emphasizes that the Eggs Donation Bill originally included a broader exceptions section which was eliminated. In light of all this, the Knesset believes that the order nisi must be revoked and that the petition must be denied.

Discussion

15. The case before us raises human concerns of the highest order, and it again highlights the existing gap between technological advances and the welcome existing medical abilities in the area of fertilization and birth – which enable couples and single people around the world to realize their hearts’ desires and bring children into the world – and between the slow development of the law which trails behind them attempting to establish proper rules for their regulation (on the law’s trailing behind scientific advances and changing social perceptions, see in similar context: HCJ 5785/03, Gadvan v. The State of Israel, The Ministry of Health, IsrSC 58(1) 29, 34 (2003); HCJ 4077/12, Jane Doe v. The Ministry of Health , para. 2 of Justice E. Rubinstein’s judgment and paras. 33-32 of Justice D. Barak-Erez’s judgment (February 5, 2013) (hereinafter: the Jane Doe case); the New Family case, p. 459-60; HCJ 566/11, Magad v. The Ministry of Interior, para. 4 of Justice E. Arbel’s judgment (January 28, 2014) (hereinafter: the Magad case); see also and compare CFH 6407/01, Zahav Channels and Partners v. Tele Event Ltd., IsrSC 58(6) 6, 22-28 (2004); CA 9183/09, The Football Association Premier League Limited v. John Doe, para. 6 of Justice N. Hendel’s judgment (May 13, 2012); LCA 3810/06, I. Dory and Chicovski Construction and Investments Ltd. v. Goldstein, IsrSC 62(3) 175, 196 (2007); Dan Shinman, A Defense Attorney’s View of the Reliance Defense, The Or Book – A Collection of Essays in Honor of Justice Theodore Or 507, 510-12 (Aharon Barak, Ron Sokol and Oded Shaham, Eds., 2013.))

From the outset, I will then say that the complex case before us, underscores the need that modern pieces of legislation that wish to comprehensively regulate such central aspects of people’s lives such as the issue of fertilization and birth, and that when they establish a blanket criminal prohibition against conduct that is inconsistent with them,  also include a built in mechanism that allows the competent authority designated to do so under the arrangement, to examine and approve on a case by case instances that are exceptional and out of the ordinary. This is because reality often surpasses the imagination and the goal to provide a complete, comprehensive and rigid solution in legislation that inherently cannot fully anticipate all the possible variations in the regulated context, may turn positive and law abiding people into criminals, without this serving any public interest and without it advancing the realization of the purpose that stands at the foundation of the discussed statutory arrangement.

16. Liat’s desire to bring a child into the world from her own eggs has not diminished even after the difficult fertilization treatments she had gone through for years. Liat wishes, therefore, to take the last step that may enable her, hopefully, to bring a child who would carry her genetic background into the world. This route is using her eggs through their extraction, fertilization and implantation in Dana’s body, her partner for about a decade. This is a process that involves a complex medical procedure, which is mostly to take place in the bodies of the partners who desire it. The Respondents confirmed in their arguments that the procedure they wish to perform does not elicit any “moral objection.” Still, it is currently prohibited under both the Surrogacy Law and the Eggs Donation Law that even set a criminal sanction to those violating such prohibition. In other words, the extraction of Liat’s eggs, their fertilization and their implantation in Dana’s body is caught in the net of the prohibitions included in the above statutes and may implicate all the people involved (including the attending physician) in criminal offense, only because of the broad and extensive language of these provisions and without an actual violation in the case at hand of any interest which these statutes are designed to protect.

Under these circumstances, it is appropriate to grant the Petitioners any of the remedies they seek?

The Surrogacy Law

17. In their amended petition, the Petitioners wished to find a solution within the institution of surrogacy or alternatively through eggs donation. From the reasons detailed below, I believe that the legal discussion ought to center around the Eggs Donation Law, both because it is clearly the piece of legislation that bars the Petitioners from executing their plan, and because the surrogacy path inherently is unsuitable for their matter.

The obstacle facing the Petitioners in terms of surrogacy is twofold: first, the Petitioners (either of them and both of them together) do not meet the definition of “intended parents” as established in the Surrogacy Law and thus are not eligible to take this route in Israel. Second, it is seriously doubtful whether under the circumstances surrogacy fits their wishes.

The definition established in section 1 of the Surrogacy Law, whereby “intended parents” are: “A woman and a man who are a couple” raises considerable constitutional difficulties, some of which this Court discussed in New Family case (see the position of then Justice M. Cheshin, which was joined by most of the members of the extended panel adjudicating that petition.) The Court noted that this definition unjustifiably discriminated against “single” women compared to a man and a woman who are a couple (there, p. 455-56.) And yet, I see no reason to address in further detail the constitutionality of this definition because it seem that currently real steps are being taken in order to change it, including as a result of the criticism over the Law’s provisions expressed in the decision given in the New Family case (for a critique of the Court’s unwillingness to strike down this definition as early as 2002 in New Family, see Dafna Haker, Beyond ‘Old Maid’ and ‘Sex and the City’: Singlehood as an Important Option for Women and Its Treatment in Israeli Law, Iyunei Mishpat 28, 903, 941-43 (2005); see also HCJ 1078/10, Pinkas v. The Board for Approval of Embryo Carrying Agreements , (June 28, 2010) where the Petitioners withdrew their petition challenging this definition in light of the convening of the Mor Yosef Committee.) As has already been noted, in May 2012 the recommendations of the Mor Yosef Committee, which was appointed by the Director General of the Ministry of Health, were published. The recommendations include a concrete proposal to change the definition of the term “intended parents” to also include an unmarried woman who has a medical condition that prevents her from carrying a pregnancy. Additionally, the commission recommended establishing another route for surrogacy in Israel, which would afford access to surrogacy to men without female partners as well. As reflected from the State’s arguments, the Mor Yosef Committee’s recommendations were passed onto an implementation team established for such purposes in the Ministry of Health, and the fruits of the implementation team’s labor were recently submitted to the Minister of Health in order to process them into a bill for amending the legislation that would be brought before the Knesset. It should also be noted that the 18^th Knesset is also considering the Agreements for Carrying Embryo Bill (Amendment – Intended Parents), 5772-2012 (P/18/4266), which aims to amend the definition of the term “intended parents” to include also “a woman and a woman or a man and a man” (for additional recent developments on this issue see the Memorandum regarding the Embryo Carrying Agreements  Law (Approval of the Agreement and the Status of the Child) (Amendment – Definition of Intended Parents and Executing Agreements out of Israel), 5774-2014, which was approved by the Committee of Ministers for Legislative Matters on March 2, 2014). In light of these developments, it seems that to the extent that the Petitioners are faced with obstacles due to the existing definition of “intended parents” in the Surrogacy Law, the Legislature must be allowed to exhaust the legislative processes and we must refrain at this point from judicial intervention in the Surrogacy Law’s provisions (on the self-restraint that binds the Court when asked to intervene in ongoing legislative processes, see and compare: CFH 5161/03, E.S.T Projects and Human Resources Management Ltd. v. The State of Israel, IsrSC 60(2) 196, 206 (2005); HCJ 761/86, Miaari v. The Speaker of the Knesset,  IsrSC 42(4) 868, 873-74 (1989)).

18. However, as noted, even had the Surrogacy Law’s definition of “intended parents” been amended – whether by legislation or by judicial intervention – I seriously doubt whether the institution of surrogacy is the appropriate pate to execute and realize the process which the Petitioners seek (see: Ruth Zafran, There Are Also Two Mothers – The Definition of Motherhood for A Child Born to Same-Sex Female Couples, Din U’Dvarim 3 351, 366-67 (2008) (hereinafter: Zafarn)). This is because as opposed to the well-known and acceptable path of surrogacy which the Surrogacy Law also lays out according to which the relationship between the surrogate and the child is severed upon birth, in our matter Dana (the “carrying mother”) is expected to continue and raise the child alongside Liat (the “intended mother”) as she is, as the Petitioners put it, “the other half of the family unit into which the child would be brought.” The State and the Knesset emphasized in their arguments that the issue of severing the parenting link between the surrogate (as the “carrying mother”) and the child after birth is a central aspect of the arrangements established by the Surrogacy Law. I accept their approach that without this severance it would be incorrect to see the route the Petitioners wish to take as a surrogacy process. Though the Surrogacy Law regulates the exceptional cases where the court may approve the surrogate’s withdrawal from the surrogacy agreement into which she had entered, while establishing her status as mother and guardian over the child (see section 13 of the Law,) but these cases are irrelevant to our matter, which to begin with does not fit any of the characteristics of the institution of surrogacy, in light of the Petitioner’s declared intentions to raise the child together in the family unit they started.

As I have found that the surrogacy path is not the right path to examine the Petitioners’ claims, this means that should my opinion be heard, the Petition ought to be denied in terms of section 1 and 2 of the issued order nisi.

The Eggs Donation Law

19. The Eggs Donation Law creates different obstacles for the Petitioners. Under section 11 of the Law, a woman who has a medical condition that prevents her from becoming pregnant with the eggs in her body or any other medical condition that justifies using the eggs of another woman in order to have a child is entitled to submit a request to receive an eggs donation. The Eggs Donation Law also stipulates that a child born as a result of an egg donation would be the child of the recipient mother for all intents and purposes, and that the donor woman would have none of the authorities granted parents vis-à-vis their children (section 42 of the Law.) Therefore a woman needing an eggs donation is, as a general rule, a woman who cannot become pregnant by her own eggs because of fertility difficulties or a woman who fears passing on a genetic defect to her children (see Zafran, p. 362.) The woman who donates the eggs does not take, as a general rule, any part of raising the child carried by the recipient woman.

In our case, the Petitioners wish to use a “donation” due to a medical condition that the donating woman (Liat) has, rather than the recipient woman (Dana). This is coupled by the fact that they are a couple who wishes to raise together the child whom they bring into the world together, so that it has genetic ties to one of them and biological ties to the other. As we can see, Dana and Liat do not meet the requirements in the Eggs Donation Law and thus the prohibition in section 4(a) of the Eggs Donation Law, which mandates that “no one shall perform the extraction of eggs from a donor […] or the implantation of eggs, unless according to the provisions of this Law” applies to them, along with the criminal sanction set in section 41 of the Law which can be expected by anyone violating the Law’s provisions.

The Background for The Eggs Donation Law’s Legislation

20. As noted above, the case before us is not the first case where the Ministry of Health was requested to allow a female couple to bring a child into the world via egg donation from one female partner to the other. Indeed, in July 2006, T.Z. and N.Z., a female couple, approached the legal advisor of the Ministry of Health with a request to approve a medical procedure whereby the eggs of one of them (T.Z.) be extracted, fertilized and implanted in the uterus of the other (N.Z.) who has reproductive difficulties (the facts of the case were detailed in FA (Tel Aviv) 60320/07, T.Z. v. The Attorney General – State Attorney, District of Tel Aviv (March 4, 2012) (hereinafter: the T.Z. case,) where the court discussed a motion to establish the legal motherhood of the egg donor.) The case took place before the legislation of the Eggs Donation Law, and therefore the relevant legislative framework for examining the request was mainly the Fertilization  Regulations and regulation 4 there (in its version then) which prohibited extracting eggs from a woman who is not undergoing medical treatment for fertility difficulties. Despite such prohibition, as described in the decision in T.Z., the couple’s request was accepted by attorney Hibner-Harel, as following:

“We do not see any bar for performing the medical procedure mentioned in your letter. The Regulations require that egg be extracted from a woman who is undergoing medical treatment for infertility, however considering that you and your partner are a family unit – I believe it is sufficient that the fertility treatments are a result of a fertility difficulty of both of you, even if it is not the woman from whom the egg is extracted” (there, paras. 3 and 26.)

Therefore, the Ministry of Health has accepted the request from the female couple to extract eggs from T.Z. even though she did not go through fertility treatments because it considered the couple a family unit and thus was satisfied by the fact that one of them had fertility difficulties. As a result of this position of the Ministry of Health, in that case the necessary medical procedure was performed in September 2006 and in June 2007 the minor D.Z. was born. The case received wide publicity (see Zafran, p. 352) and consequently in July 2008 and April 2009 two additional requests were received by the legal advisor of the Ministry of Health from female couples who wished to be permitted to donate egg to one another. In light of the issue’s sensitivity it was decided to bring it to then Attorney General M. Mazuz and in a discussion held in the matter on September 6, 2009 the Attorney General decided that “where a donation between a female couple is concerned […] this must not be seen as an act that violates public policy, and the donation must be permitted” (see document dated November 24, 2009, entitled “Discussion Summary – Eggs Donation between Female Partners,” Annexure R/4 of the State’s response dated November 12, 2012.) Still, and given that regulation 4 of the Fertilization Regulations establishes an exclusive procedure for extracting eggs, it was decided that it was impossible to permit extracting egg from a woman who does not meet the requirements of the regulation – that is, that is not under medical treatment for fertility difficulties. The Attorney General added that the current legal situation is unsatisfactory and that there are additional circumstances that would justify eggs donation that are out of the regulation’s scope. The Attorney General also noted that the Eggs Donation Bill, which was already being contemplated, must be advanced.

21. Prior to the legislation of the Eggs Donation Law, then, at least one case of an egg donation between women partners was permitted, and this was since the Ministry of Health considering the couple a family unit that merited accepting their request in light of the circumstances of their shared lives. In addition the Attorney General noted that such donation must not be seen as an infringement of the public policy, and called upon the legislature to make an effort to advance the Eggs Donation Bill and through it resolve such cases as well. And indeed, after the Eggs Donation Bill 5767-2007 had passed in the Knesset at first reading, the Knesset’s Labor, Welfare and Health Committee took its time between 2008-2010 and poured over different proposed languages for the provisions. The Bill included, among others, different conditions which only when they are met it was possible to receive an eggs donation. They included presenting a “medical need” by the recipient; expanding the circle of donors to include also “volunteer donors” not receiving fertility treatments; and establishing the exceptions committee authorized to approve donations even if certain conditions detailed in the law were not met. On the latter, section 18 of the Bill stipulates:

“Approval in Exceptional Cases:

18. When any condition of the conditions for approving the extraction of eggs, approving the allocation of eggs or approving the implantation of eggs under sections 12, 14 or 16, respectively, are not met but the supervising physician believes there are exceptional and unique circumstances that merit the approval even without that particular condition, the physician may approach the exceptions committee with a request to secure such approval.”

And section 21 of the Bill, which addresses the exceptions committee’s authorities and the scope of its discretion, instructs generally as follows:

“Approval by the Exceptions Committee

21. […]

(e) The exceptions committee may approve the extraction of eggs, allocation of eggs or implantation of eggs, per the request of a supervising physician under section 18, should it believe that under the circumstances there are exceptional and unique reasons to justify doing so.”

The explanatory notes to the Bill addressed these sections and noted that they were designed to allow the exceptions committee to consider an eggs donation even with the different conditions detailed in the law are not met “in cases that justify doing so and that are impossible to anticipate in advance, and without this requiring an amendment to the law.” The Ministry of Health’s legal advisor, Adv. M. Hibner-Harel had even explained the need for sections 18 and 21(e) above to the members of the sub-committee that was convened in order to supervise the Bill’s advancement, saying that:

“[…] I would like there to be some section for an exit strategy. There are things in life that I don’t anticipate today. I would like to qualify this exit section. I’m not here to climb mountains or to start revolutions, but I need a section because of the problems I see in the course of my position, because of problems that we did not anticipate in the legislation and then I have do diverge from the law and from the courts notes, but we do it because it must be done” (see minutes of meeting Labor, Welfare and Health Sub-Committee for Supervising the Eggs Donation Bill, 5769-2008, dated November 3, 2008, p. 47.)

Some of the members of the sub-committee expressed their concern that these sections would make circumventing the other conditions in the law possible, and after discussing the necessity of the above “basket sections” the mentioned  sub-committee members decided to remove them from the Bill noting that “this could be left to the courts.” This followed comments by Rabbi Dr. Mordechai Halperin, representative of the Ministry of Health’s Bioethics Committee, who told the committee members that:

“It is better to remove section 18 and leave it to the court […] The court permits things that the law prohibits. Not just the Supreme Court, but also the District Court. There are many examples. When there is a real need it finds the way, even if it is explicitly in violation of the law” (there, p. 50-51.)

And in the exchange between the sub-committee chair, Member of Knesset A. Eldad and Rabbi Halperin, it was also said:

“Chair Aryeh Eldad: The court cannot act in violation of the law. Maybe we should add here a basket provision that authorizes the court to act as an exception of an exception.

[…]

Mordechai Halperin: But this does not to be written. The court does this anyway, regardless of a basket section. So we do not need it.” (There, p. 49.)

22. This puzzling and mistaken reasoning is that lead to the removal of the said “basket” sections from the Bill and as a result the Eggs Donation Law, which was passed in 2010, was left without a flexible route to allow considering exceptions from the law’s requirements in the unique cases that may not be anticipated in advance, including, for instance, a case such as the one before us where the recipient has no “medical need” for the eggs donation but there are other reasons that justify permitting the donation. The language of the law in the version that passed allows the exceptions committee limited authority that was restricted only to the cases detailed in section 20(a) of the law and only when the conditions detailed in section 22 of the law are met for each of those instances. The Petitioners’ case is not among those detailed there and thus they cannot find a solution in turning to the exceptions committee.

Do the law’s provisions in their current state violate the constitutional rights of the Petitioners to an extent that merits judicial intervention?

The Eggs Donation Law’s Violation of Constitutional Rights

23. Since the legislation of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty in 1992, Israeli law had identified a string of basic rights from the right to dignity, including: the right to equality, to autonomy, to family life, to parenting and to free expression. Do the provisions of the Eggs Donation Law infringe upon the Petitioners’ basic right to dignity and its derivative rights? This is the first question that must be examined in order to exercise judicial review over the law’s constitutionality. To the extent that we find the answer to be in the affirmative, we must continue and examine whether this infringement meets the requirements of the Limitations Clause of section 8 of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, and which outlines the scope of protection granted to these basic rights, as relative rights. Finally, to the extent that we may find the infringement by the Eggs Donation Law upon the Petitioners’ basic rights to violate the Limitations Clause the consequences of this unconstitutionality must explored, along with ways to cure it (for the three step constitutional analysis and the relativity of constitutional rights, see HCJ 6427/02, The Movement for Quality Government in Israel v. The Knesset, IsrSC 61(1) 619, 669-670 (2006); HCJ 7052/03, Adalla – Legal Center for the Rights of the Arab Minority in Israel v. The Minister of Interior, IsrSC 61(2) 202, 281-82 (2006) (hereinafter: the Adalla case); HCJ 10662/04, Hassan v. the National Insurance Institute of Israel, para. 24 of President D. Beinisch’s judgment (February 28, 2012) (hereinafter: the Hassan case); HCJ 7146/12, Adam v. The Knesset, paras. 68-69 of Justice E. Arbel’s judgment (September 16, 2013); Aharon Barak, Proportionality in Law – the Infringement of a Constitutional Right and its Limits, 51-53, 56-57 (2010) (hereinafter: Barak, Proportionality)).
24. The Eggs Donation Law prohibits, as discussed, the Petitioners by criminal sanctions from performing egg extraction from Liat’s body and implant that same egg in Dana’s uterus after it has been fertilized. Does this amount to a violation of the Petitioners’ constitutional rights?

The right to autonomy which encompasses one’s right over their body is at the “hard core” of the constitutional right to dignity (see CLA 1412/94, The Hadassah Medical Organization Ein Kerem v. Gilad, IsrSC 49(2) 516, 525 (1995); CA 2781/93, Daaka v. “Carmel” Hospital, Haifa, IsrSC 53(4) 526, 571 (1999) (hereinafter: the Daaka case); CA 10064/02, “Migdal” Insurance Company Ltd. v. Abu Hana, 60(3) 13, 48 (2005); CA 4576/08, Ben-Zvi v. Hiss, para. 25 of Deputy President E. Rivlin’s judgment (July 7, 2011); CA 10085/08, Tnuvah – Co-operational Center v. Estate of Raabi, para. 33 (December 4, 2011); CA 1303/09, Kadosh v. Bikur Holim Hospital, para. 31 (March 5, 2012.)) So, for instance, in Daaka it was decided that the basic right to autonomy over one’s body means that the patient’s informed consent is necessary in order to perform any medical treatment on them, and as Justice T. Or wrote there:

“This right of a person to determine their life and fate holds within it all the central aspects of their life – where they may live; what may be their occupation; who they may live with; what they may believe. It is central to the existence of each and every individual in society. It expresses the recognition of each and every individual’s value as a world unto themselves. It is essential to each individual’s self-determination in the sense that the entirety of our choices defines our personality and our life […]

An individual’s right to autonomy is not exhausted  in this narrow sense, of the possibility to choose. It also includes another aspect – a physical one – of the right to autonomy which goes to one’s right to be left alone […] This right means, among others, that every person must be free of intervention in their body without their consent” (there, p. 570-71.)

Justice H. Ben-Ito discussed the autonomy a woman has over her body in terms of intimate decisions involving reproduction and birth, in CA 413/80, Jane Dow v. John Doe, IsrSC 35(3) 57, 81 (1981), as follows:

“Impregnation, pregnancy and birth are intimate events, which are wholly within the private sphere; the State cannot intervene in this area unless there are weighty considerations stemming from the need to protect an individual right or a serious public interest” (and see also CA 1326/09, Hamer v. Amit, para. 71 of Deputy President E. Rivlin’s judgment (May 28, 2012.)

Regulating the area of eggs donation in legislation that establishes what may or may not be done with a woman’s eggs, therefore, on its face infringes a woman’s autonomy to determine what may be done with her body. From the donor’s perspective, this is an intervention in her ability to realize her wishes to donate an egg to another woman. From the recipient’s perspective this is an intervention in her ability to receive in her uterus a fertilized egg and to carry the resulting pregnancy. The law infringes, then, upon the liberty of these two women to choose how they lead their lives free of any external intervention in decisions involving their bodies (see Meir Shamgar, Issues of fertilization and Birth, Hapraclit 39 21, 27, 31-32 (1989)). However, one’s autonomy over their body and the liberty to make decisions involving the body are not absolute rights, and as any other right they must be balanced against conflicting rights or limited in some instances. Therefore, as to the extent that infringing upon the Petitioners’ autonomy is concerned, it is necessary to go on and examine whether this infringement meets the requirements of the Limitations Clause.

25. An additional right is infringed under the circumstances  and it is also a derivative of the constitutional right to dignity. It is the Petitioners’ right to a family life and to designing their family unit as they choose (see CA 5587/93, Nahmani v. Nahmani, IsrSC 49(1) 485, 499 (1995); CA 7155/96, John Doe v. The Attorney General, IsrSC 51(1) 160, 175 (1997); the Adalla case p. 296, 400, 465, 474, 496-97, 523; HCJ 466/07, MK Zehava Galon – Meretz-Yahad v. The Attorney General, para. 10 of Justice E. Rubinstein’s judgment (January 11, 2012); Yaniv Ron-El, The Limits of Fertility Freedom from a Liberal Perspective: the Case of Selecting the Child’s Sex, Iyunei Mishpat 32 391, 451 (2010) (hereinafter: Ron-El)). Justice A. Procaccia discussed the right to family life in HCJ 7444/03, Dakka v. The Minister of Interior, (February 22, 2010) saying:

“One’s right to family is one of the foundations of human existence. Its realization is required for fulfillment and purpose in life. It is a condition to one’s self-realization and their ability to tie their life to their partner and to their children in true partnership of fate. It reflects the essence of one’s being and the realization of their heart’s desires. The right to family is located at the top of the list of human rights. Taking away from this right is possible only where it conflicts an opposing value of special force and importance” (there, para. 15.)

The Petitioners wish to have a child together and to expand their family unit. Such a meaningful decision by a couple that goes to having children expresses in full force not only the Petitioners right to autonomy but also their right to family life. In this case the right to family life encompasses an additional important right, which is the right to parenthood (see CA 451/88, Does v. The State of Israel, IsrSC 44(1) 330, 337 (1990); CFH 2401/95, Nahmani v. Nahmani, IsrSC 50(4) 661, 719 (1996) (hereinafter: the Nahmani case); HCJ 2245/06, Dovrin v. Israel Prison Service, para. 12 (June 13, 2006); The Jane Doe case, paras 26-27 of Justice E. Rubinstein’s judgment; The Magad case, para. 41 of Deputy President M. Naor’s judgment; Pinhas Shifman Family Law in Israel vol. 2 139 (1989); Yossi Green In Vitro Fertilization From A Consent Perspective 66 (1995) (hereinafter: Green.))

There are those who consider the right to parenthood to be the meaning of life, but even if this approach is not universally accepted, it seems the right to parenthood cannot be overstated (see Vardit Rabitzki, The Right to Parenthood in the Age of Technological Fertilization, Dilemmas in Medical Ethics 137, 145-147 (Rephael Cohen-Almagor, ed. 2002) (hereinafter: Rabitzki); on the “reproductive freedom” included within the right to parenthood, see Shulamit Almog and Ariel Bendor, Reproductive Freedom as a Basic Right, A Different Kind of Pregnancy 115, 116-17 (Shulamit Almog and Avinoam Ben Zeev, eds. 1996) (hereinafter: Almog and Bendor); the right to parenthood is also mentioned in section 16 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948 (“Men and women of full age, without any limitations due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family”) as well as in other declarations or treaties, see: Almog and Bendor, p. 117; Rabitzki, p. 137-38; the Adalla case p. 470-73.) Indeed, the desire for parenthood follows humans since the dawn of history and scholar P. Shifman notes that while in the past the ability to bring children into the world was in the hands of fate, one of the characteristics of the modern age is that fulfilling such desire is subject to a large extent to one’s choice and free will (see P. Shifman, On the New Family: Notes to Start A Discussion, Iyunei Mishpat 28 643, 661 (2005)).

Professor D. Barak-Erez discussed the statues of the right to parenthood, noting:

“The right to parenthood is an independent right, rather than a reflection of autonomy of free will. Realizing the option of parenthood is not just a possible way of life, but it is also rooted in human existence. Some may find it to be a cure for loneliness; others may use it to cope with awareness of death […] The choice of parenthood is not just a choice about a way of life – it has weight beyond this in human existence. It expresses a fundamental existential need. In addition, the decision to become a parent also solidifies self-realization, particularly in modern society that emphasizes self-realization as a value. However the right to parenthood does not only stem from self-realization. The right to life is an independent fundamental right, rather than merely a derivative of the autonomy of will, and so is the right to parenthood.” (Daphne Barak-Erez, On Symmetry and Neutrality: Following the Nahmani cases, Iyunei Mishpat 20 197, 199-200 (1996)).

In her emotional arguments before us, Liat expressed her desire to be a parent and to have a child who carries her genetic code, as well as the grave pain and frustration she experiences after years of unsuccessful fertilization treatments. All this led Liat to conclude that she will likely be unable to fulfill her wishes unless implanting her fertilized eggs in the uterus of another woman who would carry the pregnancy would become possible. The natural choice for this is of course her partner, Dana, who expressed her wishes to take part in the process as someone interested in expanding their common family unit in this way. In this sense the obstacles mounted by the Eggs Donation Law infringe Liat’s right to parenthood, whereas it seems this is a different level of infringement in terms of Dana’s right to parenthood.

26. Indeed, the case law and literature discussed the facets of the right to parenthood and have distinguished between the core of the right – such as the “practical ability to bring children into the world” – and facets that are at the periphery of the right – such as “one’s ability to choose how to exercise their natural right” (see the Jane Doe case, paras. 27-32 of Justice E. Rubinstein’s judgment and para. 11 of Justice D. Barak-Erez’s judgment; see also Ruth Zafran, The Range of Legitimacy in Choosing the Genetic Characteristics of the Child by the Parents – Choosing the Sex of the Child for Social Reasons as a Case Study” Mishpat V’Asakim 6 451, 460-61 (2007); Green, p. 68-69; Almog and Bendor, p. 118.) Categorizing each case along this distinction influences the force of the infringed right and the way the right to parenthood must be balanced against other rights and interests that relate to, for instance, the potential child’s best interest, the public interest, and the different requirements by the bodies participating in the reproductive process such as sperm donors, egg donors, doctors and treating institutions (see Rabitzki, p. 151-59). In this context, for example, in the Jane Doe case it was held that a woman’s wishes to bring children into the world who would all have the same genetic father by once more using the sperm donation of the same donor she used for her first child is not in the core of the right to parenthood and it must be balanced against the refusal of that same anonymous donor for additional uses of his sperm and against his right not to be a parent.

Therefore, the arrangement established in Eggs Donation Law which restricts extraction and implantation of eggs and prohibits through criminal prohibition performing these acts unless they meet the requirements in the law, infringes the Petitioners’ constitutional rights to autonomy, family life and parenting. As a result we must continue and examine whether this infringement meets the requirements of the Limitations Clause in section 8 of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty.

The Eggs Donations Law and the Requirements of the Limitations Clause

27. The Limitations Clause in section 8 of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty sets four conjunctive requirements that must be met in order to justify infringing upon a constitutional right that is protected by the Basic Law. The infringement must be done through legislation (or by explicit authorization in legislation); the law must fit the values of the State of Israel; it must be for a worthy purpose ; and the infringement of the right must be to extent not greater than necessary. In our case, there is no dispute that the infringement of the Petitioners’ rights is done through legislation – the Eggs Donation Law, and to the extent that this law is concerned the Petitioners have not argued in terms of its fit with the values of the State of Israel. It is possible, then, to focus the discussion in terms of the Limitations Clause on the question of the worthiness of the law’s purpose and the proportionality of its arrangements.

Worthy Purpose

28. Section 1 of the law states:

“The purpose of this law  is to regulate eggs donation for the purposes of reproduction and birth, while achieving maximum protection for the dignity, rights and health of the donor woman and the recipient woman, as well as to regulate the use of eggs for research purposes, all while protecting women.”

In stating so the law informs that it is designed to regulate the use of technology for extraction and implantation of eggs primarily for the purposes of reproduction, but also for the purposes of research. This purpose is of course worthy and welcome. It advances an important social causes and facilitates the realization of many women’s basic, natural and understandable desire for a child while using advance technologies developed in this field and that allow overcoming medical conditions and bringing children into the world (see minutes from meeting of the 17^th Knesset's Labor, Welfare and Health Committee, dated February 18, 2008, p. 5.) Still, it is important to remember that the legislative arrangement regarding eggs donation, like other legislative arrangements (see and compare: the Organ Implantation Law, 5768-2008) trails behind the technological advances that were achieved and have been implemented in medicine for many years before the law was legislated. The need for an arrangement was born, therefore, in order to establish what was and was not to be permitted in this complex and sensitive area in order for it not to remain open for exploitation by different bodies. This explains the emphasis at the end of section 1 that the law was meant to “regulate eggs donation for the purposes of reproduction and birth, while achieving maximum protection for the dignity, rights and health of the donor woman and the recipient woman (emphasis added.)”

Examining the purpose of the law must focus then on the rationales behind its various restrictions and prohibitions. The premise that must guide us in this examination is similar in its essence to the premise that then Justice M. Cheshin outlined in the New Family case when he discussed the Surrogacy Law:

“A main aspect of this human need – the need to exist and to survive – in a woman’s desire, a desire to the end, for a fruit of her womb, a child that is a flesh of her flesh. Previously, man knew only one way to realize this wish, and this is how the family unit was created. Currently, when technology may assist people where nature fails it, a material rationale is required in order to bar a woman from using this technology” (there, p. 447.)

In other words, the force of the reasons and rationales necessary to limit birth with the assistance of technology must essentially be on par with the force of the reasons and rationales required to limit natural reproduction (see Rabitzki, p. 149-51.)

Reviewing the restrictions and prohibitions established in the Eggs Donation Law indicates that they were meant, generally, to ensure the protection of the health of women involved in the process as well as the health of the child. The law was also intended to prevent trade in eggs and exploitation of women (see, for instance, section 12 and 14 of the Eggs Donation Law which set age limits for a “volunteer donor”, restrictions on the number of eggs that may be extracted each time and on the frequency of the extraction process; see also the prohibition on trading and mediations eggs established in section 8 and 9 of the law.) The restriction in section 11 whereby the eligibility for an eggs donation under the law is contingent upon the recipient being “unable due to a medical condition to become pregnant with the eggs in her body, or has another medical problem justifying using another woman’s eggs in order to have a child” was designed to prevent using fertilization and implantation technology for purposes which the legislature considers, and rightly so, as antisocial. This was discussed by scholar Ruth Zafran who noted that the condition in terms of the necessary medical condition of the recipient was meant to prevent using the eggs for eugenics reasons – that is, experimenting with “improving” the genes of the offspring (see Zafran, p. 362.) The resulting conclusion is that the arrangement established by the Legislature in the Eggs Donation Law was for a worthy purpose. Therefore we must further examine whether the means taken by the Legislature to achieve the law’s purposes are proportional.

The Proportionality of the Arrangement in the Eggs Donation Law.

29. The proportionality issue may be examined under three sub tests established by the case law. They are: the existence of a rational link between the chosen means and the desired end; a lack of a least restrictive alternative; and proportionality between the benefit achieved by the statute and its different arrangements and the harm caused by its virtue (see, out of many: HCJ 1715/97, Israel Investment Managers Guild v. The Minister of Finance, IsrSC 51(4) 367, 385-86 (1997); HCJ 3648/97, Stamka v. The Minister of Interior, IsrSC 53(2) 728, 776 (1999) (hereinafter: the Stamka case); HCJ 1661/05, Gaza Beach Regional Council v. Knesset of Israel, IsrSC 59(2) 481, 549-550 (2005) and the many sources there; HCJ 2442/11, Stanger v. Speaker of the Knesset, paras. 41-42 of President A. Grunis’ judgment (June 26, 2013); Barak, Proportionality, p. 169-72.)

The rational connection test is designed to detect the existence of the probability that the means chosen by the statutes would indeed lead to achieving the end for which it was enacted. Under this test it is not necessary that the statute ensures fully achieving that end, but it must point to a real link to accomplishing it. In my view, regulating the issue of eggs donation in Israel while imposing different limitations and prohibitions on the possibility to donate and receive eggs, including a criminal prohibition designed to deter and enforce these restrictions, may lead to achieving the purposes of the statute, as we described them above. The fact that as a result of a statute’s broad language the possibility of an eggs donation is prohibited even in cases that the law did not attempt to prevent, such as this case, cannot in and of itself sever the rational link between the prohibition and the purpose the law was meant to achieve (Barak, Proportionality, p. 376-78, 411-12.) The matter of the arrangement’s proportionality in light of the fact that its restrictions catch in their net cases where there is no concern for harming any of the interests the law wishes to protect, should therefore be explored under the second sub test which poses the question whether there is an alternative means to achieving the law’s purpose in a manner that is less restrictive.

30. Indeed, the tight knit net the law casts caught even the Petitioning couple’s heart desire, though it is undisputed that it carries no moral flaws and though it is universally clear that it does not harm any other individual or any of the social and public interests which the law wishes to protect. The Respondents raised many good reasons to justify the conditions and restrictions set by the Eggs Donation Law, but they cannot point even to one meaningful reason to justify preventing the Petitioners from going ahead with the extraction, fertilization and implantation procedure they wish to perform, apart from the fact that the law – due to is broad and expansive language – prohibits doing so. It should be emphasized that since we are concerned with the elimination of the Petitioners’ basic rights, the prohibition in the law is that which requires justification (see New Family, p. 444-45, 448-49) and given the force of the infringed rights and their nature as “negative rights” whose exercise does not impose on the state any duties (see Ravitzki, p. 141; Ron-El, p. 445-448), it seem the strength of the justification for the expansive means chosen, must meet a higher bar.
31. I am afraid that the fact that the Eggs Donation Law (as opposed to its Bill) does not authorize the exceptions committee it forms the general power to examine exceptional and unusual cases leads to the conclusion that the means established by the arrangements included in the law to realize the worthy purposes for which it was enacted, are disproportional and rigid and may cause – as was the case here – arbitrary harm to women whose right to use relevant assisted reproductive technology in order to have a child the law never intended to infringe.

The need to set an exceptions mechanism to allow the examination of particular cases that were impossible to anticipate in advance, particularly where the Legislature established an extensive arrangement that infringes upon basic rights, was discussed by this Court, among others, when analyzing the second sub test of the proportionality requirement in the Adalla case (and see also: HCJ 2150/07, Head of Beit Sirah Village Council v. The Minister of Defense, para. 5 of Justice E. E. Levi judgment (December 29, 2009); HCJ 10533/04, Weis v. The Minister of Interior, para. 43 (June 28, 2011); the Hassan case, para. 68 of President D. Beinisch’s judgment.) And in the words of President A. Barak:

“The exceptions mechanism may reduce the law’s infringement of rights, without compromising the achievement of the worthy purpose. Therefore, creating such a mechanism is an obvious outcome of the second sub test which addresses identifying a less restrictive alternative. Indeed, just as it is the duty of any administrative authority to exercise judgment on a case by case basis and to recognize the exceptions to the established rules and instructions when circumstances call for doing so […] so is it the duty of the Legislature, when setting an arrangement whose outcome is broad infringement of rights, to consider the establishment of an exceptions mechanism that would allow resolution in special cases when the circumstances justify it.” (The Adalla case, p. 329; see also Barak, Proportionality, p. 407-09.)

Although President A. Barak remained in the minority in Adalla, but it seems that on this particular issue, Deputy President (Ret.) M. Cheshin was of the same opinion as Barak (there, p. 455.) Then Justice M. Cheshin’s words as to the exceptions mechanism’s necessity from a different case are apt here as well:

“A policy lacking exceptions is like an engine without oil for lubrication. Just as the latter will burn out soon and stop operating, so is the fate of the policy.” (The Stamka case, p. 794.)

32. The Eggs Donation Law does include a mechanism to examine exceptions, but as was explained in detail above, the authority of this committee is limited and restricted to only four sets of circumstances, as detailed in sections 20 and 22 of the law. In my view this limited and narrow mechanism is insufficient because it does not at all resolve the unjustified infringement on the basic rights of women – such as the Petitioners or others – in those cases where they cannot all be anticipated in advance and do not fall under one of these four sets of circumstances.

To summarize so far – the law in its current version infringes disproportionately upon the rights of the Petitioners and other women whose circumstances are unusual and warrant resolution, and thus because of the limited and unsatisfactory mechanism the law sets to examine and approve exceptional cases. In the absence of a more flexible mechanism to explore exceptional cases that may not be anticipated in advance, the law is flawed for a lack of a proportional means, which is less restrictive on basic rights.

33. In light of this conclusion, there is no longer any need to discuss the third sub test – the narrow proportionality test. In this context I will note, beyond the necessary scope, that expanding the circle of donors, preventing the trade in eggs, and protecting the health of donating and receiving women certainly are important purposes that highly benefit society. Still, the harm incidentally caused to the Petitioners and other women like them whose right to form their family unit and exercise the most meaningful choices in their life are compromised by the law, cannot be justified. This is particularly in the absence of a social or public interest whose protection justifies such infringement, and given the fact that realizing their rights to autonomy, to family life and to parenthood as they wish to does not infringe in any way upon the rights of any other person. The fact that in this case Liat has no other actual way to have a child to bear her genetic code – other than the method the couple wishes to pursue – only serves to emphasize and exacerbate the unjustified harm to them (compare with the Jane Doe case, para. 6 of Justice D. Barak-Erez’s judgment.) Indeed the biological genetic link between a parent and child is not the end all be all. Of no less significance (and often of more) “ingredient” to building and shaping the relationship between parents and children is the emotional connection and commitment to the child’s well-being and upbringing (see and compare CFH 6211/13, The Attorney General – The Ministry of Welfare and Social Services v. Jane Doe, paras. 27-28 of Deputy President M. Naor judgment (December 23, 2013); the Magad case, para. 14 of Justice S. Joubran’s judgment.) Still, and as already noted, there must be real and meaningful justification to denying a person the possibility to exercise the right to parenthood in a way that includes blood ties between them and the child. In our case it has not been argued, and in any event, it has not been proven that the added value achieved through the blanket prohibition in the Eggs Donation Law is greater than benefit achieved had the law included a mechanism for individual examination of exceptional cases. It cannot be denied – tight prohibitions that have defined in general and all-encompassing provisions present advantages. They facilitate efficiency and efficacy in enforcing the law. However, the main disadvantage of general and extensive language of statutory provisions is the inability to anticipate in advance all those situations that would be caught in the wide and tight net of the prohibition. Therefore, once the legislature chose to cast this tight knit net it must at the same time also establish what Justice M. Cheshin called in Stamka “oil for lubrication.” In other words, there must be a flexible mechanism that would allow resolution in exceptional cases that justify not applying the prohibition in the law. In this case, and as we are concerned with the Eggs Donations Law, which addresses one of the most sensitive and meaningful issues in human society, the importance of such flexible mechanism that would allow the exceptions committee to perform its function in an appropriate manner cannot be overrated. Sadly, such a mechanism did not find its way into the Eggs Donation Law.

To complete the picture, I will note that in later stages of the adjudication before us, and in an honest effort to find a practical solution, among others, to the Petitioners’ problem, the State presented the “Taking of Semen, Eggs or Fertilized Eggs out of Israel” protocol accepted in July 2013. This protocol somewhat opens the door in the strict and extensive prohibition against implanting eggs in violation of the law as established by the Legislature in the Egg Donations Law. Under the protocol it may have been possible, seemingly, to permit the Petitioners to take eggs extracted from Liat’s body out from Israel in order for them to be implanted in Dana’s uterus abroad. Only this partial solution is not a real response to the constitutional difficulties created by the law. It does not permit the implantation to be done in Israel. It places a serious financial burden on the petitioners because of the requirement to perform the implantation overseas and all that may be involved in this, and according to the Petitioners, it also reduced the prospects of the procedure’s success. Therefore, following this protocol is of some solution to the Petitioners’ concrete plight, but it is only a partial fix which forces the Petitioners and others in their situation to leave for overseas in order to find a remedy for their troubles there, without any real justification.

34. Therefore, the legislative arrangement in the Eggs Donations Law includes conditions to perform the extraction and implantation of eggs in Israel and a blanket prohibition against performing these procedures where such conditions are not met. This is without granting the exceptions committee the sufficiently flexible authority to consider individual exceptional cases that justify diverging from the provisions of the law. This arrangement is unconstitutional because it infringes the basic rights of the Petitioners in a way that is consistent with the requirements of the Limitations Clause. The criminal prohibition established in section 41 of the Eggs Donation Law exacerbates the law’s violation of these rights because it paints the human desire to have a child in criminal colors, and this without any obvious reason or justification.

In light of all this, we must consider the outcomes of unconstitutionality – that is the question of relief.

The Outcomes of Unconstitutionality

35. Finding that the Eggs Donation Law unconstitutionally violates the Petitioners’ basic rights and those of others like them, does not necessarily mean that the law must be struck down. When we come to decide which constitutional relief is appropriate, we must strive as much as possible for a fit between that relief and the harm to be cured. As professor A. Barak wrote in his book about interpretation in the law “the nature of the relief is related to the nature of the harm and the reason it is unconstitutional” (Aharon Barak, Interpretation in the Law, Vol. 3 – Constitutional Interpretation, 732, 767-68 (1994) (hereinafter: Barak, Interpretation in the Law.) Once we have held that arrangements established in the Eggs Donation Law are for a worthy purpose but infringe upon the Petitioners’ rights to an extent more than is necessary, we must continue and examine whether there are appropriate means to relieve the infringement or mitigate it without the Court having to strike down the law or any part of it (as to the careful manner in which the Court is required to act before striking down a statute, see HCJ 7111/95, The Center for Local Government v. The Knesset, IsrSC 50(3) 485, 496 (1996); HCJ 2605/05, The Academic Center for Law and Business v. Minister of Finance, IsrSC 63(2) 545, 592-94 (2009.)) In our case, there is no reason to strike down the entire Eggs Donation Law, or even to strike down section 4(a) of the law which prohibits performing extraction and implantation of eggs in violation of the law, because such a move would create a significant “statutory void” which would leave the area of eggs donation unregulated and would cause more harm than good. Striking down section 11 of the Eggs Donation Law, all of it or part of it, would also fail to achieve the outcome desired by the Petitioners because that would mean removing an essential and justified requirement, generally, in terms of the necessity of a recipient’s woman medical need as a prerequisite for receiving an eggs donation without resolving the problem of many others who face additional rigid restrictions set by the law. Under the circumstances, I believe that the appropriate solution can be found in the mechanism of the exceptions committee. Were my opinion be heard, we shall read into the Eggs Donation Law an additional sub section, that would follow section 20(a)(4), whereby the exceptions committee would be authorized to approve an eggs donation “where it believes that under the circumstances there are special and exceptional circumstances that justify doing so.”
36. This remedy, of “reading into the statute” is well known in the Israeli and foreign case law and literature, and it aims to read into the unconstitutional statutory arrangement provisions that would remove the flaw and alleviate the need for striking down the statute (see Barak, Interpretation in the Law, p. 763.) So, for instance, this remedy is designed to address situations where the statutory provision grants benefits to members of one group, but does not grant that same benefit to members of a different group that is entitled to the same rights. In this situation the blanket striking down of the benefit due to its infringement upon equality would not be the appropriate remedy, because this would undermine the worthy purpose of the statute while harming the members of the group that lawfully enjoy the existing benefit. Therefore courts in the United States and in Canada have developed an appropriate remedy that would expand the scope of the existing arrangement and thus remove the unconstitutional harm it includes, while preserving the statute and protecting the purposes it is meant to achieve (for a comprehensive comparative review see: Barak, Interpretation in the Law, p. 759-65; Imanuel Gross, Constitutional Remedies, Mishpat U’Mimshal 4 433, 458-59 (1998) (hereinafter: Gross); Igal Marzel, Suspending Invalidity Declaration, Mishpat U’Mimshal 9 39, 62-63 (2005)). In that way, American courts have recognized the possibility of “extension” – the possibility to extend the scope of the statute where appropriate to do so as a constitutional remedy that is preferable to striking down the statute (see Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 361 (1970), where Justice Harlen, in a dissenting opinion, first proposed the doctrine which became precedent later in Califano v. Westcott, 443 U.S. 76, 79 (1979); see also Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Some Thoughts on Judicial Authority to Repair Unconstitutional Legislation, 28 Clev. St. L. Rev. 301 (1979); Evan H. Caminker, A Norm-Based Remedial Model for Under Inclusive Statutes, 95 Yale L. J. 1185 (1986)). The Canadian Supreme Court similarly developed the Reading In doctrine which means reading provisions into the statute that negate its unconstitutionality (see Schachter v. Canada, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; see also Vriend v. Alberta [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. United Food and Commercial Workers [2013] S.C.C. 62). The Canadian Court has held, however, that the court would not opt for the remedy of reading into the arrangement while intervening in the statute’s framework in every case, and that in order to read in the court must consider, among others, the scope of the necessary extension, whether the extension is simple to execute, the budgetary cost of extension and whether it preserves the basic fabric of the statute (see Schachter, p. 19-21.)
37. The reading in doctrine has been absorbed into Israeli law. It was first raised in HCJ 721/94, El Al Israel Airlines v. Danilovitz, IsrSC 48(5) 749, 767-69 (1994), where the Court noted, though it was unnecessary for purposes of the decision, that this remedy should have been used on the constitutional level because it advances the purpose underlying the statutory arrangement and alleviates the need to strike down the legislation (id., p. 769.) The case in which this Court found it appropriate to apply the doctrine was HCJ 8300/02, Nasser v. The Government of Israel (May 22, 2012,) where the Court considered a mechanism of tax benefits established by section 11 (b) of the Income Tax Ordinance [New Version], which detailed a particular list of localities whose residents were entitled to reductions in income tax payments. This list of localities, for the most part, was not defined by any particular criteria and the entitlement for the tax benefit was granted through explicitly noting the names of the localities in the said section. Once it held that the list of localities detailed in section 11(b) of the Ordinance was discriminatory, the Court ordered that the appropriate constitutional remedy would be granting the same benefits to the residents of three Arab and Druze localities that were discriminated against in comparison to the Jewish residents in the nearby localities. The Court then read into the Ordinance the names of the additional localities noting that this move is not inconsistent with the exceptions established in comparative law (see there, paras. 57-59 of President (Ret.) D. Beinisch’s judgment; for other cases where the possible use of the Reading In doctrine was discussed, see HCJ 3809/08, The Association of Civil Rights in Israel v. The Israel Police, para. 15 of President (Ret.) D. Beinisch’s judgment (May 28, 2012); HCJ 3734/11, Davidian v. The Knesset of Israel, para. 59 (August 15, 2012.)) In the New Family case, too, where the constitutionality of the Surrogacy Law’s narrow definition of “intended parents” was discussed, Deputy President S. Levin noted that “the Petitioners [wish] to expand the small opening created by the law in order to resolve the plight of several tens of couples and expand it based on the principle of equality. This technique is permitted through the principles of constitutional interpretation of reading in, but we do not apply it in cases where it deals a complex issue that its consequences are unclear and where by nature warrant regulation by the Legislature (see New Family, p. 468.)
38. In my opinion, the constitutional remedy appropriate in this case is, again, reading a sub-section into section 20(a), as proposed in paragraph 35 above, whereby the exceptions committee would be granted, in addition to the limited powers it currently has, the general and flexible authority to approve an eggs donation where it finds “there are special and exceptional reasons that justify doing so.” This remedy leaves the entirety of the arrangements in the law as they are. It preserves the “fabric of the legislation” and does not at all compromise the worthy purposes that the legislature wished to realized through the law. It removes the unconstitutionality of the law’s arrangements by allowing, alongside the blanket criminal prohibition in the law, a flexible mechanism that is not bound only to the four case detailed in section 20(a)(1)-(4), and it permits individual examination of cases where the donating or recipient women do not meet (one or more) of the conditions set by the law, but where there may still be special and exceptional reasons that justify approving the donation (for justifying the application of the reading in doctrine, particularly in order to develop exceptions to criminal responsibility, see Gross p. 466-67.) Reading this arrangement into the law does not involve, as I understand, additional budgetary costs, and as discussed, in the proposed version it is intended to cover only unique and exceptional cases that merit it. Nor does the proposed addition pose a significant change to the law’s provisions and it is merely a specific extension of the narrow opening left by the legislature when limiting the exceptions committee to the four cases detailed in section 20(a) of the law.

It is important to recall – and I discussed this above in paragraph 21 – that the Bill included an exception clause in the very same language that I propose to read into the law, but it was removed from the final version of the law that was passed after Rabbi Halperin noted to the members of the sub-committee that discussed the Bill, that the section is redundant and that petitioners that do not fall under sections 20(a)(1)-(4) (as marked in the law’s final version) that would turn to courts in their distress and present to them special and exceptional circumstances would be granted remedies there. And as Rabbi Halperin said there:

“It is better to remove section 18 and leave it to the court […] The court permits things that the law prohibits. Not just the Supreme Court, but also the District Court. There are many examples. When there is a real need it finds the way, even if it is explicitly in violation of the law” (Minutes of meeting of the Sub Committee of the Labor, Welfare and Health Committee for Supervising the Eggs Donation Bill 2008, dated November 3, 2008, p. 50-51.)

These things by Rabbi Halperin are unfounded, with all due respect, and they are which ultimately led to removing the general exceptions clause that initially was included in the Bill from the final version that was passed. This caused the final version to be unconstitutional and in order to remedy this flaw I propose reinstating the section that was removed, particularly because it is abundantly clear that removing it was rooted in reasons that are mistaken on their face.

Before concluding, I will note that the State’s argument that the Eggs Donation Law is a new statute legislated about three years ago and therefore, similarly to the approach the Court took in New Family, intervention in its provisions should be avoided and its application and consequent developments that would follow incrementally should be permitted to take their course, has not escaped me. Indeed in New Family the Court believed that though it was found that the Petitioner was unconstitutionally discriminated against there was no place to intervene in the Surrogacy Law because this was “a new and complex issue, and issue with many unknowns that we have yet to experience to the fullest.” Instead of intervening in the legislation, the Court therefore opted in that case to call upon the Legislature to contemplate the plight of single women as petitioners and weightily consider applying the law to them. I do not believe that such a move fits the case before us. Since the legislation of the Surrogacy Law about 18 years have passed and still to this day a resolution has yet to be found for petitioners such as the petitioner in New Family, though recently and as detailed above, a certain glimmer of hope has been created in this context. Such long wait for action by the legislature requires those whose basic rights have been infringed upon as a result of the current version of the law to hold their breath. Given the nature and substance of these infringed rights, and given the medical procedure required for eggs donations, which must attribute significant – even determinative – weight to the “ticking” of the biological clock, I do not believe that it is proper to adopt here the path walked by this Court in New Family.

Conclusion

39. Had my opinion been heard, we would make the order nisi permanent and hold that the Eggs Donation Law disproportionately violates the Petitioners’ constitutional rights to autonomy over their bodies, to family life and to parenthood. We would further find that in order to cure this violation we must read into the provisions of the Eggs Donation Law an additional section – section 20(a)(5) – that would authorize the exceptions committee formed under the law to approve the extraction of eggs, their allocation and their implantation in the body of a recipient woman, should the committee be satisfied that under the circumstances there are special and exceptional reasons that justify doing so. We would also find that the Petitioners be permitted to come before the exceptions committee and seek its approval according to such section to perform the extraction of Liat’s eggs, their fertilization and implantation in Dana’s uterus in order to make it possible for them to bring into their family unit a child that would have a genetic link to Liat and a biological link to Dana, as all of Liat’s attempts over the years to become pregnant herself have been unsuccessful. As my opinion remains in the dissent, I see no need to expand about the consequences of section 42(c) of the law for the status of Liat as the child’s mother, had the donation been permitted. But it seems that to the extent we are concerned with approval that excepts the procedure from the law not just for Liat’s inability to become pregnant herself, but also because of the characteristics of the family unit created by Liat and Dana as a couple, it would have been possible to find a reasonable and proper solution on this issue as well.

                                                                        Justice

Justice E. Arbel (Ret.)

“And Rachel saw that she did not bear a child with Jacob, and Rachel was envious of her sister and said to Jacob ‘Give me sons, or I shall die.’” (Genesis 30, 1.)

1. Our issue in this case concerns the desire for a child, which we hear with an open heart and a forthcoming spirit and try to realize it if only it were possible.

After having read the comprehensive and impressive judgment by my colleague, Justice E. Hayut, I join wholeheartedly with the outcome whereby the Petition must be accepted. However, I intend to propose an additional but different way to reach this outcome, and will detail it below. Since the chain of events and the parties’ arguments were presented at length in my colleague’s opinion, I can begin at the stage of discussion and decision.

Introduction

2. As my colleague Justice E. Hayut noted, in recent years we witness significant scientific and technological advances in birth and reproductive techniques. These developments open the door to many people, women, couples and families for many additional possibilities to bring children into the world and realize their desires to become parents. All the while our time is also characterized by social developments that create new types of families that were not acceptable in the past. The combination of technological and social advances presents a real challenge for the law, which is constantly required to face unique situations that were not previously known (see HCJ 4077/12, Jane Doe v. The Ministry of Health, para. 2 of justice Rubinstein’s judgment (February 5, 2013) (hereinafter: the Sperm Bank case); CFH 2401/95, Nahmani v. Nahmani, IsrSC 50(4) 661, 694 (1996) (hereinafter: the Nahmani case); Pinhas Shiffman, On the New Family: Introductory Notes, Iyunei Mishpat 28, 643 (2005) (hereinafter: Shiffman)). The Expectation is that the Legislature regulates the use of different reproductive techniques. The main difficulty is caused by the great gap between the time it takes to legislate and legally regulate the use of each reproductive technique and the rate of technological advances (see Ruth Zafran, There Can Be Two Mothers – The Definition of Motherhood to A Child Born of A Same Sex Couple, Din U’Dvarim 3 351, 397 (2008) hereinafter: Zafarn – There Can Be Two Mothers.); Ruth Zafran, The Family in the Genetic Age - the Definition of Parenthood under the Circumstances of Artificial Reproduction as a Case Study, Din U’Dvarim 2 223, 230 (2006) (hereinafter: Zafarn – The Family in the Genetic Age.)) This gap leads to situations where the knowledge and technological capabilities to turn people into parents exist, but cannot be permitted to be used without legal and legislative regulation, even when the State has no general objection to realizing parenthood in this way by this couple. This is also our case here. Before us are two women, a couple, where the implantation of one’s eggs in the other’s uterus may realize their wishes and desires to parenthood. The technological route exists. The State declared it had no general objection to this move, and it should be noted that in the past the State did in fact permit women partners to perform this procedure. Still, the State now argues that there is nothing in the law to regulate the desired procedure, and thus executing the technological possibility cannot be permitted.
3. In my view, this Court has a role in bridging this gap, at least in part. Indeed the Court does not act as a substitute for the Legislature. And obviously the Court must accept and apply the legislative arrangements in place, as long as there is no constitutional reason to intervene in them. However, the Court can assist those who approach it in two ways. One is through the tool of purposive interpretation of legislation. Interpreting an existing legislative arrangement in the field of reproduction and birth must consider the basic human desire of singles and couples to realize their right to parenthood and to have a child. Of course, this purposive interpretation would only be possible when some anchor is found in the language to lay down the foundation for the interpretation and when the considerations and interests existing in the matter justify such interpretation. Another tool at the Court’s disposal is finding normative solutions to situations that have yet to be regulated in legislation (see Nahmani). Because of the issue’s sensitivity and the severe harm to couples and singles who cannot realize their right to parenthood merely due to the Legislature taking its time in forming a legislative arrangement, I believe that the Court must roll up its sleeves and find resolutions for the interim period before the proper arrangements are completed by the Legislature. This in the acceptable manner of developing the law and according to the Foundations of Law 5740-1980 (and see in this regard the different positions by the Justices in Nahmani, p. 694, 719, 723, 756.) there is no dispute that at a later stage the Legislature may form a different legal arrangement than that arrived at by the case law. It is its duty and its authority. And thus summarized Deputy President M. Cheshin:

“It is true: courts have forever been required to handle gaps formed between yesterday’s legislation and jurisprudence and today’s life phenomena. The law and legislation are always the law and legislation of yesterday and their progress is slow to advance, it is careful and calculated. Whereas reality, it changes and flows constantly, often at warp speed. So are the reality and the disputes that arise against its backdrop…

Only that for the most part the law is wise to adapt to changing reality, and even as a gap is formed between the language of the law and reality we take the interpretive tools in our hands and use them to catch up and have the law cover the advances of reality…

And indeed, courts have always done so, and do what they can – within the boundaries of language – to cast the written law’s net over phenomena coming into the world after the law’s enactment, and this even when at the time of legislation the legislature could not have anticipated the existence of such phenomena. The court’s first duty is to effect justice between the litigants that come before it, and in performing this duty the court must do whatever possible within the confines of the existing law even if the solution at which it arrives is not the best solution” (CFH 6407/01, Arutzei Zahav and Co. v. Tele Event Ltd., IsrSC 58(6) 6, 23-24 (2004)).

4. Two statutes must be examined in the matter before us: one is the Embryo Carrying Agreements  Law (the Approval of the Agreement and the Status of the Child), 5756-1996 (hereinafter: the Surrogacy Law) and the other is the Eggs Donation Law, 5770-2010 (hereinafter: the Eggs Donation Law.) But before I turn to reviewing these statutes, their interpretation and their ramifications for the case at hand, I wish to discuss two important principles that will influence the interpretive process: the right to parenthood and the principle of equality.

The Right to Parenthood

If only I had a son! A little child,

With black curls and smart.

To hold his hand and walk slowly

Along the garden’s paths

A little. Child.

…

I will be bitter as our Mother Rachel.

I will pray as Hannah in Shiloh.

I will wait

For him.

5. A woman’s (or man’s) desire to a child of their own is a common and deep sentiment rooted in human existence and deriving from the desire for self-realization since the dawn of time to this day. It was expressed in the Tanach repeatedly, books and songs were written about it (one of the best known is “Akarah” – “barren” or “infertile”, eds. note – by the poet Rachel.) the desire to have and hold a child of one’s own body is a fundamental and natural desire that is common to humanity in its entirety. Whatever the explanation for it – biological, psychological or other – most people have a significant, strong and deep wish to become parents. Indeed people go to great lengths and make huge investments – financial, physical and emotional – and are willing to suffer greatly in order to realize their desire for a child even when it is impossible in the natural sense. And in the words of Deputy President M. Cheshin in HCJ 2458/01, New Family v. the Committee for Approving Agreements for Carrying Embryo, Ministry of Health, IsrSC 57(1) 419, 445 (2002) (hereinafter: the New Family case)):

“The core of the issue is the heart’s desire for a child, that deep, primordial emotional need to parenthood that burns in the woman’s soul and does not expire. The core of the issue is the human’s survival instinct and need for continuation, if you will. The need and desire to parenthood is inherent to humans.”

And Justice Dorner expressed this in Nahmani as following, on page 714:

“In human society, one of the strong expressions for the desire, without whose realization, many cannot see themselves as fully free, is the desire to be a parent. This is not merely a natural, biological need. We are concerned with choices that in human society signify one’s individuality and uniqueness. ‘Any man who has no children is seen as dead’ said Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi (Nedarim, 64, 2.) And indeed, for both man and woman, most people see having offspring an existential need that gives meaning to their lives.”

(see also Daphne Barak-Erez, On Symmetry and Neutrality: After The Nahmani Case, Iyunei Mishpat 20 197, 200-01 (1996); Shiffman, p. 664.)

The emotional need to become parents received legal recognition through the right to parenthood. It appears that in the State of Israel there is particular sensitivity to this right, in light of Israeli society’s approach to the value of family and the value of having children as central and weighty values (see New Family, p. 466.)

6. The right to parenthood, therefore, is generally recognized in Israeli law, both in terms of one’s reproductive freedom and in terms of the right to realize the relationship with the child (see Zafran – There Can Be Two Mothers, p. 381-82; the Sperm Bank case, para. 26 of Justice Rubinstein’s judgment.) “Every person has the right to parenthood and the right to raise and inculcate a child” (HCJ 11437/05, Kav La’Oved v. Ministry of Interior, para. 38 of Justice Procaccia’s judgment (April 13, 2011.)) Different aspects of the right to parenthood were even enshrined as a constitutional right in Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. Though a comprehensive and exhaustive discussion of the range of the aspects and entire scope of this important and meaningful right has yet to take place, it is in any event clear that the practical possibility to bring children into the world is at the core of the right to parenthood, and thus the State may not infringe on these possibilities without weighty reasons (see 2245/06, Dovrin v. The Prison Service, para. 15 of Justice Procaccia’s judgment (June 13, 2006) (hereinafter: the Dovrin case.)) The Court distinguished between two levels of the right to parenthood, in terms of reproductive and birth freedoms, with the first level being the possibility to exercise one’s reproductive abilities and become a parent, whereas the second level goes to the way in which one’s natural right to become a parent is realized. This level, it was said there, is in the periphery of the right to parenthood and it protects values such as the right to privacy, the right to autonomy and the like (see the Sperm Bank case, para. 29 of Justice Rubinstein’s judgment.) Beyond the scope necessary for a decision in our case, I will comment that in my view this case falls under the first level of the right to parenthood rather than the second level, as the State attempts to argue. It is no wonder that for the First Petitioner realizing her right to parenthood is by having a child who carries her genetic code. It seems to me that this desire, which is indeed a natural and understandable human desire, warrants recognition within the core of the right to parenthood, even if today, in the modern age, a genetic relationship is not the end all be all (see the Sperm Bank case, paras. 43-45 of Justice Rubinstein’s judgment; Zafran – the Family in the Genetic Age, p. 233 onward; Shiffman, p. 668.) therefore the State’s proposal to turn the tables – so that the Second Petitioner’s eggs be extracted and implanted in the First Petitioner’s uterus is not “comparable” in terms of the ranking of rights to the First Petitioner’s request to extract eggs from her and implant them in the Second Petitioner’s uterus (see Nahmani, p. 753, and compare with the Sperm Bank case.) and this is true even without considering the probability, which is closer to a near certainty, as to the physical, medical inability of the First Petitioner to carry a pregnancy in her uterus.
7. The right to parenthood was recognized by this Court in the context of using artificial reproductive techniques (see the Sperm Bank case, para. 6 of Justice Barak-Erez’s judgment and the references there) as well. The current times have opened many avenues for hope to bring a genetic child into the world for those who cannot have children. There are also the possibilities for adopting non biological children. These possibilities repeatedly inspire dilemmas that involve the development of the right to parenthood and exploring its place within the existing legislative framework. Of course, this is not an absolute right. Often times, examining reproductive techniques raises questions of morality and conflict between rights. Thus, for instance, when there is concern for harm to surrogate mothers or women who wish to donate eggs. In these cases, balance is of course required between the different rights and the conflicting interests. In any event, the importance of the right to parenthood and its high status among rights must influence the interpretation of statutes that address the relevant field. It is usually the primary goal of these statutes and thus it must be respected within the purposeful interpretation of the legislation on the matter.

The Principle of Equality

8. Discrimination is the unequal treatment of equals, when there is no relevant difference between them. We cannot ignore the fact that the case before us involves a same sex couple. A reality was created where heterosexual couples are able to use a variety of methods in order to become pregnant and bring a child into the world – from the natural method, through use of eggs donation, surrogacy agreements and the like. On the other hand, same sex couples are limited in the ways they can bring children into the world, both for biological reasons and for legal reasons (see judgment by Justice Joubran in HCJ 566/11, Mamat-Magad v. The Minister of Interior (January 28, 2014.)) Indeed there may be cases where it could be argued that there is indeed a relevant difference resulting from the biological difference (such as the need of male couples to use surrogacy arrangements even when neither of them has a medical condition, which can raise the concern of over use of the method of surrogate women, when arguments are made about the harm, medical injuries or exploitation of these women or some of them. see in this regard the recommendations by the public committee for examining the legislative arrangement of fertility and reproduction in Israel, 2012 (the Mor-Yosef Report) p. 57-62; in a different context, see regarding the consideration of the role of existing social attitudes in the best interest of the child: CA 10280/01, Yarus-Hakak v. The Attorney General, IsrSC 59(5) 64, 107 (2005) (hereinafter: the Yarus-Hakak case)). Still, in many cases it was impossible to point out to such a relevant difference. The social reality is that there are many same sex couples now. Indeed, this is an issue that is not yet a social consensus, but we cannot nevertheless ignore from the reality as it exists both as a matter of fact and a matter of law (see the New Family case, p. 450-51; and see also Zafran – There Can Be Two Mothers, p. 380; HCJ 273/97, The Association for Protecting Individual Rights v. The Minister of Education, Culture and Sport, IsrSC 51(5) 822 (1997); Hanan Goldschmit, The Missed Identification Card of the Israeli Family – The Legal Consequences of Case Law Regarding Adoption by Same Sex Couples, HaMishpat 7, 217, 237 (2012); Shiffman, p. 645.) Many same sex couples raise children, whether through arrangements permitted out of Israel, or through arrangements permitting having children in Israel itself (such as a sperm donation for a female couple.) It should still be emphasized that the Court does not purport here in this context to go into questions about the status of same sex couples and to decide on the value based discussion taking place on the matter (see, the Yarus-Haka case, p. 114; HCJ 3045/05, Ben-Ari v. Director of the Population Administrator, para. 22 of President Barak’s judgment (November 21, 2006) (hereinafter: the Ben Ari case.)) Nor do I propose in this opinion to decide on the question of same sex couples’ constitutional right to have equal access to artificial reproductive techniques as heterosexual couples (see AAA 343/09, The Jerusalem Open House for Pride and Tolerance v. The Municipality of Jerusalem, para. 40 (September 14, 2010) (hereinafter: The Open House case.)) Still, to the extent that we are concerned with the interpretation of a legislative arrangement, or the lack of any arrangement at all, we must assume that any legislative arrangement would be interpreted or established to fit the principle of equality and prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, as long as there is not explicit instruction from the Legislature to the contrary (see also, Ifat Biton, The Influence of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty on the Status of Same Sex Couples, Kiryat HaMishpat 2 401 (2002); Michal Tamir (Itzhaki), The Right to Equality of Homosexuals and Lesbians, HaPraclit 45 94, (2000-2001)).
9. The above approach also fits the existing legislative arrangements that indicated the Legislature’s negative view of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Some of these arrangements were added to legislation in recent years and can teach us about the present view of the Legislature in the matter. Thus, for example, it was established that in certain cases one who has committed an offense motivated by animus based on sexual orientation they are punishable at double the penalty set for that same offense (section 144F of the Penal Law 5737-1977.) An employer is prohibited from discriminating between its employees or candidates for employment on the basis of their sexual orientation (section 2(1) of the Equal Opportunities in Employment Law 5748-1988). Similarly it is prohibited to discriminate in public accommodations, supplying products or access to public services because of sexual orientation (section 3(a) of the Prohibition of Discrimination in Products, services and Entrance to Entertainment Establishments and Public Places Law 5761-2000). Caretakers and medical institutions may not discrimination between patients based on their sexual orientation (section 4(a) of the Patient’s Rights Law 5756-1996.) It was additionally legislated that committees for admission to community towns cannot refuse a candidate for reasons of sexual orientation (section 6C of the Cooperative Associations Ordinance.) Those obligated to run tenders are prohibited from discriminating among candidates because of their sexual orientation (section 2(b) of the Tender Obligations Law 5752-1992). And this is only a partial list.
10. Courts, too, throughout all their levels, when coming to interpret legislative arrangements contemplated the principle of equality between heterosexuals and homosexuals, both as single people and as couples. In one case, President Barak reviewed a long list of judgments where it was held that homosexual couples are granted rights under specific statutes and arrangements (see, the Ben Ari case, para. 19 of President Barak’s judgment, and see also The Open House case, para. 54.) It should be noted that in the matter of Ben Ari, the State itself declared that it recognized that the shared life of a homosexual couple constitutes “a social unit with some legal implications.” Since that review, this list expanded to include additional judgments walking in the same direction (see, for instance, CA (Nazareth) 3245/03, A.M. v. The Attorney General in the Custodian General, (November 11, 2004); AP (Tel Aviv Yaffo) 1255/05, Garcia v. The Ministry of Interior (August 17, 2008.) And indeed it was held:

“The law in Israel regarding the LGBT community and its members reflects the changes that took place over the years in Israeli society. The position of Israeli society is that the law must be indifferent to sexual orientation, just as it must be indifferent to other traits in one’s identity or a group – such as age, race, nationality, sex and others. Similarly there is a wide agreement that members of the LGBT community must not be restricted or discriminated against. This position is also expressed both in the case law and in the legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation…” (The Open House case, para. 54.)

It was even noted that “it seems these are no longer ‘islands’ of rights, but a comprehensive constitutional concept of a right not to be discriminated against because of sexual orientation.” (The Open House case, para. 56.)

Without addressing the constitutional issue or establishing a new status, it appears then that legislative arrangements must be interpreted to conform with the principle of equality that requires the equal treatment of same sex couples.

Fertilization Treatments

11. For the purposes of the discussion before us, a woman’s fertility difficulties may be schematically divided into two categories: the first is difficulties related to the woman’s eggs that make it impossible to use them for having a child. The second is a medical difficulty to carry a pregnancy. Therefore, there may be four potential situations: a woman with healthy eggs who is able to carry a pregnancy and give birth, a woman with healthy eggs but who is unable to carry a pregnancy; a woman with unhealthy eggs who is able to carry a pregnancy and a woman with unhealthy eggs who is unable to carry a pregnancy. These distinctions will be helpful below as we interpret the legislative arrangements in effect in the field of reproductive techniques.

The Agreements for Carrying Embryo Law

12. As my colleague, Justice E. Hayut, noted, the Surrogacy Law was enacted in Israel in 1996 as a result of the work of a public committee headed by Judge (Ret.) Shaul Aloni that was set up to explore the issue. The law was first to regulate couples’ assistance from  a surrogate in order to have a child. Under the law, the surrogacy procedure involves the implantation of a fertilized egg in order to impregnate the carrying mother so that she can give the child born as a result to the intended parents (see section 2 of the Surrogacy Law.) The fertilized egg would be, under the Surrogacy Law, an egg that is not from the surrogate. In other words, the egg may be from the intended mother who solicits the surrogacy, or from a donor that is not the intended mother or the carrying mother (see section 2(4) of the Surrogacy Law; section 11 of the Eggs Donation Law.) The sperm fertilizing the egg must be from the intended father (section 2(4) of the Surrogacy Law.) During the surrogacy process the fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus of the surrogate woman who in effect has not genetic relationship to the fertilized egg. After birth, the surrogate is supposed to give the child to the intended parents (see New Family, p. 429.) The Surrogacy Law includes many arrangements regarding the procedure, including the conditions for entering into agreements with a surrogate, the conditions for approving an agreement between the intended parents and the surrogate, the status of the child after birth and so on. It should also be noted that the intended parents are defined by the Surrogacy Law as “a man and a woman who are a couple and who enter into an agreement with a carrying mother in order to have a child” (section 1 of the Surrogacy Law.)

It is important to emphasize that the Surrogacy Law does not address the stage of in vitro fertilization, which is regulated by the People’s Health Regulations (In Vitro Fertilization) 5747-1987 (hereinafter: the People’s Health Regulations.) The law only addresses the stage after fertilized eggs have been created, when the couple seeks the approval of an agreement to implant the eggs with a surrogate (see New Family, p. 435.)

13. As the State argues, the Surrogacy Law is irrelevant to the matter before us and does not apply to it. The law clearly distinguishes between the surrogate mother and the intended parents. As mentioned, after the birth no legal link is meant to exist between the surrogate mother and the child. The physical handing over of the child into the custody of the intended parents must be done as soon as possible after the birth. The welfare administrator is the child’s guardian until the intended parents are granted a parenting order. The request of a surrogate mother to renege on the agreement with the intended parents and to keep the child would not, as a general rule, be approved unless by a court and under circumstances that justify it while considering the child’s best interest (see chapter C of the Surrogacy Law.) In the case before us, the Petitioners request that the Second Petitioner serve both as a surrogate mother and as an intended mother. This situation is not included in the Surrogacy Law and is beyond its purpose and provisions. The arrangements covered by the Surrogacy Law have nothing to do with the procedure the Petitioners wish to perform. The conclusion is that this law does not apply to the case at hand and does not at all assist in regulating it.

The Eggs Donation Law

14. The second statute related to the issue, which the parties address, is the Eggs Donation Law, enacted in 2010. This law came to resolve the difficulties caused by a shortage of eggs for donation in Israel, a fact that created obstacles to many women requiring fertility treatments where the eggs in their bodies could not be used for these treatments. As emphasized in the explanatory notes  to the law, the law’s main concern is to regulate the eggs donation in Israel for purposes of having a child, as well as for purposes of research (see the Eggs Donation Bill, 5767- 2007, Bills 292 (hereinafter: the Bill.)) the law concerns two phases in the donation process – the phase of receiving the donation and its designation, and the stage after the birth of the child born as a result of the donation (see the explanatory notes to the Bill, p. 292.) The State argues that the law does not permit the First Petitioner to donate eggs to the Second Petitioner, because under section 11 of the law, the recipient in whose body the egg is implanted must have a medical condition that justifies using the eggs of another woman. The Second Petitioner does not meet this definition because she has not medical condition, as detailed at length in my colleague’s judgment. Indeed, these things cannot be disputed. Moreover, I do not believe we must intervene in the medical condition requirement of section 11 of the law. Still, this is not the end of our road, because in my opinion the Eggs Donation Law is not at all relevant to our matter, does not regulate it, and in fact is silent about it without creating a negative arrangement for this case. I shall clarify my position.
15. The Eggs Donation Law, as its name indicated, was designed to regulate the donation of eggs in Israel for women, who due to a medical condition, need to use another woman’s eggs in order to have a child (this alongside the research purposes regulated in the law that are irrelevant to our case.) Should we return to the schematic distinction we articulated above (para. 11) then the law applies to two categories of women: the one is the woman with unhealthy eggs who can carry a pregnancy and the other is the woman with unhealthy eggs who cannot carry a pregnancy. In the first case, the woman can use the assistance of an egg donation under the Eggs Donation Law, an egg that would then be implanted in her own uterus. In the second case the woman is assisted by both the Eggs Donation Law and the Surrogacy Law, when the egg received from the donor is fertilized and implanted in the uterus of a surrogate mother.

The law, however, according to is purpose and provisions, does not concern the case that do not involve an egg donation. The meaning of donation in this context is the giving of an egg to another woman in order for that woman to use the egg, fertilize it and become the mother of the child born out of the fertilized egg. The meaning of donation includes the giving of something to someone, rather to the donor themselves. Therefore, this is different from someone who extracts eggs in order to become herself the mother of the child born out of those fertilized eggs. In such a case it cannot be said that this is a donation, and thus the Eggs Donation Law would not apply to such circumstances. Such, for instance, is a woman who extracts eggs in order to fertilize the eggs, return them into her uterus and become the child’s mother. In such a case that is not a donation, because the egg is intended to turn the egg owner into the future child’s mother. Indeed, such a case is not covered by the Eggs Donation Law and the People’s Health Regulations in terms of in vitro fertilization would instead apply. Similarly, as well, the Eggs Donation Law does not apply to cases of egg extracted from a woman in order to fertilize them and implant them in the uterus of a surrogate (see section 4(b) of the Eggs Donation Law.) This, too, is not a donation, because the owner of the egg intends to be the mother of the child born from the fertilized egg (see the explanatory notes to the Bill, p. 295, which clarify that in this case the extraction of the eggs is not done for the purposes of donation.) Similarly, a woman who extracts eggs in order to implant them in her partner’s uterus intends to be the mother of the child born of the fertilized egg and to raise that child. Here too it cannot be said that there is a donor and a recipient, and thus the Eggs Donation Law is irrelevant to it. One cannot donate something to himself because then it would not consider a donation. I should not that the use of the term “mother” in this context refers to the social role and the woman’s subjective intent rather than to the legal determination regarding who shall be registered and recognized as the child’s mother (see on this point Zafran – There Can Be Two Mothers. In any event, I will note that the registration of two women as mothers of a child was made possible through adoption in Israel or abroad: see the Yarus-Hakak case as well as HCJ 1779/99, Jane Doe v. The Minister of Interior, IsrSC 54(2) 368 (2000); and through a parenting order: FA (Tel Aviv) 60320/07, T.Z. v. The Attorney General, State Attorney – District of Tel Aviv  (March 4, 2012) (hereinafter: the T.Z. case.))

16. The Act’s sections must be read and understood in light of the above, and according to this purpose. Indeed, the law wishes to make its provisions exclusive and limit the use of eggs donation to comport with its provisions alone. Section 4 of the Egg Donation Law stipulates as follows:

“4. Exclusivity of the Law’s Provisions:

(a) One shall not perform an eggs extraction from a donor, lab treatment of the eggs, allocation of eggs for implantation or research, or implantation of eggs, but according to this law’s provisions.

(b) The provisions of sub-section (a) shall not apply to the extraction of eggs from the body of an intended mother, to the lab treatment of eggs extracted as such and to their implantation in the body of a carrying mother for the purposes of performing an agreement for carrying embryo according to the Agreements Law.”

Additionally, section 6(b) of the Eggs Donation Law mandates that:

“6. Restrictions on the Extraction and Implantation of Eggs

(a) No one shall perform medical treatment on a volunteer donor in order to prepare eggs for extraction to be implanted, unless after securing the approval of the eggs’ extraction from the donor’s body according to section 12.

(b)An implantation of eggs shall not be performed but in the body of the recipient or the body of a carrying mother who entered into an agreement for carrying embryo with the recipient according to the Agreements Law.”

17. These sections must be read, as noted, in light of the purpose of the Eggs Donation Law and in the context of its other sections. They must therefore be understood as excluding the law’s provisions to any case in terms of eggs donation, that is cases where a woman gives her eggs to another person in order for that person, rather than the donor herself would become the parent of the child born from the donated egg and would be the person raising that child. This interpretation is consistent with the language of the law, its provisions, and its purpose. An alternative interpretation, a more comprehensive one, which requires the application of the law’s provision to any extraction and implantation of any egg, would have led to an absurd outcome where in vitro fertilizations would be impossible for women whose eggs are completely healthy, and who wish to extract those eggs and implant them in their uterus in order to become mothers of the child, because then section 11 of the Eggs Donation Law would not apply to them. Certainly, such interpretation cannot be accepted.

The conclusion that the matter at hand, where the First Petitioner wishes to extract her own healthy eggs, fertilize them, and implant them in her partner’s uterus, without requiring a donation but in order for the First Petitioner to raise herself the child that would be born (along with the Second Petitioner, who would give birth to the child) – such a case is not included in the Eggs Donation Law and the law does not create a negative arrangement in its regard.

Interim Conclusion

18. Our conclusion is that a case where a woman wishes to extract eggs in order to fertilize them and implant them in her partner’s uterus, with both women serving as mothers to the child (at least “mothers” in the social sense and in terms of their intent to raise the child together), falls neither under the Surrogacy Law nor the Eggs Donation Law. This case is neither regulated by either of these laws nor prohibited by them. But we are still left with the question which statutory arrangement does cover this case? In my view, the answer to this is simple. Since neither of these statutes applies to this case, the arrangement that would apply is the same as that which applied until now, at least according to the position of the State and the Attorney General. This arrangement combines the norms established by the People’s Health Regulations, and the authorization created by the absence of any legal regulation in the matter. I shall explain.

The People’s Health Regulations

19. The People’s Health Regulations of 1987 regulate the conditions for in vitro fertilizations. Section 2 prohibits the extraction of eggs, their fertilization, freezing or implantation unless done in a recognized hospital unit and according to the Regulations’ mandates. Section 2A details instructions for eggs extracted and fertilized out of Israel. Sections 3 and 4 stipulate as follows:

“3. Exclusivity of Purpose of Egg Extraction

The Extraction of eggs will be done only for the purpose of in vitro fertilization and its implantation after fertilization.

4. Restricting the Extraction of Eggs

Eggs shall be extracted only from a woman who meets one of the following conditions:

(1) She is undergoing fertility treatments and a supervising physician has determined that the eggs extraction would advance her treatment.”

These Regulations have regulated the matter of eggs donations before the Eggs Donation Law was legislated. It should be noted that today eggs donation, as understood according to our interpretation above, cannot be done unless according to these Regulations or the arrangements of the Eggs Donation Law.

20. As for the implantation of a woman’s eggs in her partner, the Regulations do not explicitly address this situation, but in my view their arrangements may be applied to it without difficulty, and indeed this was done in the past (see, for example, the T.Z. case.) Extracting the egg will be done only from a woman who is undergoing fertility treatments, and only for the purpose of implanting them after their fertilization (section 3 and 4 of the People’s Health Regulations.) The egg would be fertilized by the sperm of a donor and implanted in the partner’s uterus, in the absence of any prohibition in the Regulations and where the Surrogacy Law does not apply as the birth mother is also one of the intended mothers. And indeed, an instruction by the Attorney General from November 30, 2009 in terms of eggs donations between female partners establishes as follows:

“Following a discussion recently held by the Attorney General on the issue of eggs donations between female couples, the Attorney General instructed the Ministry of Health that the donation of an egg extracted from a woman under the In Vitro Fertilization Regulations (in the course of fertility treatments that she is undergoing) must not prohibited or restricted, unless under circumstances where there is concern that doing so would violate the public policy, such as where there is concern that this is done in exploitation or for the purposes of trade eggs.

Accordingly, the Attorney General instructs that as a general rule, the donation of an egg extracted from a woman in a lawful procedure under these Regulations, and that is intended for her female partner, with whom she shares a common household, must not be prohibited or restricted. Such donation must not be seen as an act that violates the public policies.

The discussion in the matter was convened following several requests received by the Ministry of Health to approve the donation and implantation of egg donated by a woman to her  female partner. At the end of the discussion the Attorney General decided, among others, as following:

• The legal point of departure is that imposing restriction by the State on eggs donations requires an authorization under law. Therefore, since the only restriction in the Regulations on our matter is that the extraction of eggs must be in the course of medical treatment due to the donor’s fertility difficulties and only when the extraction is to advance her treatment, then once the eggs have been extracted under these circumstances the Regulations include no lawful anchor for prohibiting their use as a donation to another woman.
• Still, the use of eggs may be prohibited, even when extracted according to the procedure established by the Regulations, where this violates the "public policy," such as when it is done to exploit or for the purposes of trade eggs.
• Where a donation between female partners is concerned, such as the case involving the request to the Ministry of Health, this cannot be viewed as a case that violates public policies, and the donation must be approved.
• The Attorney General emphasized, as was previously made clear in terms of other issues concerning the rights of same sex couples, that this position should not be seen as the creation or recognition of a new family status. Matters of status must be determined and regulated by the Legislature.

...”

And indeed, under this instruction, the implantation of a woman’s eggs in her female partner was made possible where the former is undergoing fertility treatments. This instruction by the Attorney General is proper and correct, and in my view, still in effect in light of my conclusion that there is no other legislative arrangement that applies or prohibits the situation before us.

21. It should be noted that in the course of the petitions that have previously submitted the difficulty in establishing meaningful and sensitive regulations in terms of reproductive techniques in regulations rather than in primary legislation were acknowledged. So, for instance, a petition was submitted to challenged regulations 11 and 13 of the People’s Health Regulations, which effectively lifted the prohibition against using a surrogate mother in Israel in order to bring a child into the world, and impose restrictions on the implantation of eggs from a donor. The State agreed to striking down these Regulations. I will further note that voiding the regulations was stayed for a certain period of time that would enable the issue’s regulation in primary legislation (see HCJ 5087/94, Zabro v. The Minister of Health (July 17, 1995); and HCJ 1237/91, Nahmani v. The Minister of Health (unreported,) where the State ultimately permitted the Nahmani couple to perform in vitro fertilization in Israel in order to implant it in the body of a surrogate abroad.) In an additional petition section 8(b) of the People’s Health Regulations, which distinguished between the requirements in terms of implanting an egg in a married woman and the requirements in terms of implanting an egg in a single woman, was challenged. With the State’s consent, this regulation, too, was struck down and it was held that a single, egalitarian arrangement would apply (see HCJ 998/96, Yarus-Hakak v. The Director General of the Ministry of Health (February 11, 1997.)) In the Sperm Bank case, the Court’s harsh criticism was expressed over the issue of sperm donations and the sperm bank is not regulated in primary legislation (the Sperm Bank case, para. 38 of Justice Rubinstein’s judgment, para. 33 of Justice Barak-Erez’s judgment.)
22. Therefore, the general approach of this Court has been that the use of artificial reproductive techniques must be regulated in primary legislation. Certainly this takes stronger force in terms of issues that have not been regulated at all, in primary or secondary legislation. Still, it seems the Court’s general approach has also been to permit the use of artificial reproductive technologies as long as there is no primary legislative arrangement prohibiting so, and where the rights of no third party or other considerable interests are infringed. “Nowadays, when technology may assist people where nature has failed them, a determinative consideration is necessary in order to prevent a woman from using that technology” (New Family, p. 447.) And Justice Procaccia emphasized this in terms of a prisoner’s right to perform artificial fertilization with his partner:

“The premise of the petition is that in order for a competent authority to permit a prisoner to perform a procedure of artificial fertilization with his partner, explicit authorization in a statute is required and without it, such permission is outside of the powers granted to it by law. This premise is fundamentally mistaken, and it turns the order of things on their head and undermines foundations of public and constitutional law. Once one has a right, certainly a basic constitutional right, a public authority need not a lawful authorization in order to exercise the right and respect it, the opposite is true. It needs a lawful authorization to limit and violate it, and where the violation limits or prohibits exercising that human right it must pass muster under the tests of the Limitation Clause as a condition to its validity and application.” (The Dovrin case, para. 16 of Justice Procaccia’s judgment.)

This position has been applied in the Attorney General’s instruction, and thus I, too, support it in terms of the situation before us. Therefore, I shall briefly detail the remaining considerations that support a holding whereby the procedure requested by the Petitioners must be approved in the absence of any lawful arrangement to prohibit it.

23. First, the principles I detailed above about the right to parenthood and the principle of equality must be woven into the relevant considerations in the matter. These principles of course support permitting the requested procedure in the absence of instructions from the Legislature to the contrary. Second, the arrangement does not raise a concern for infringing the rights of third parties, as it does not involve third parties beyond the couple that is interested in the procedure and participates in it. There is no involvement of a surrogate mother or an egg donor, so there is no concern for their rights or exploitation (see the New Family case, p. 453, 464.) Neither does the arrangement raise other typical concerns such as creating an offspring with no genetic link to his parents or caregivers, or the use of medical techniques for the purposes of the child’s genetic modification (see Zafran – There Can Be Two Mothers, p. 363.) Third, when a couple of women with no fertility difficulties are concerned, they would be able to bring a child into the world with a sperm donation without difficulty, and there is no restriction here. I see no reason why such a couple should be treated differently than an unlucky couple who is unable to bring children into the world in this way (see New Family, p. 442.) Fourth, the State’s position is not founded on principled objection to the procedure requested by the Petitioners, and no claim has been raised regarding a harm to public policy or any other meaningful argument. And indeed, as noted, the Ministry of Health has in the past approved the requested procedure. Additionally, the State emphasizes that the procedure would have been permitted in the converse – that is it would have been possible to permit the Second Petitioner to extract eggs in order to implant it in the uterus of the First Petitioner. There is no logic in approving the procedure in only one direction, when no legal arrangement prohibits the opposite direction. Finally, I will note that this is not about bringing a child into a single person’s family unit, which undisputedly is a different matter than bringing a child into the family unit of a couple (see New Family, p. 453.) And I will note that no research was brought before us to indicate that children benefit from being raised in heterosexual families, and it seems there is research to deny this assumption (see, for example: Zafran – There Can Be Two Mothers, p. 376 and the references there: see also additional research on this issue that substantiate the assumption that there is no correlation between parents’ sexual orientation and the children’s social and psychological function, and which refute the findings of research claiming otherwise: Nanette Gartrell and Henny Bos “U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents” Pediatrics 2010, 126:1 28-36; Carlos A. Ball “Social Science Studies and the Children of Lesbians and Gay Men: The Rational Basis Perspective”, 21 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 691 (2012-2013); Andrew J. Perrin, Philip N. Cohen & Neal Caren “Are children of parents who had same sex relationships disadvantaged? A scientific evaluation of the no-difference Hypothesis”, Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 17:3 327-336 (2013). See also Justice Procaccia’s on the difficulties created by the issue of when the child’s best interest consideration may justify preventing the child’s birth and when the law may intervene in the matter: “The question when may the child’s best interest justify preventing the child’s birth is a deep question in the areas of ethics and philosophy. The question of when the law may intervene in this and when a public authority may have the power to intervene in one’s right to have a child for reasons of the child’s best interest and other reasons is highly difficult and complex. The right to have a child and the right to be born are concepts that are very much within the purview of the extra-legal areas of morality and ethics” (the Dovrin case, p. 17 of her judgment.))

Conclusion

24.  The picture created by the categorization we mapped out above, then, is as follows: a woman with unhealthy eggs who can carry a pregnancy may be assisted by an eggs donation under the Eggs Donation Law; a woman with unhealthy eggs who cannot carry a pregnancy can be assisted by both an eggs donation under the Eggs Donation Law and by the Surrogacy Law for purposes of implanting the fertilized egg (with the sperm of the intended father) in the uterus of a surrogate mother; a woman with healthy eggs who is able to carry a pregnancy can be assisted by in vitro fertilization when experiencing fertility difficulties under the People’s Health Regulations; a woman with healthy eggs who is unable to carry a pregnancy may too perform in vitro fertilization under the People’s Health Regulations. The implantation of the eggs in another woman can be done according to the Surrogacy Law(when the other woman is a surrogate) or according to the People’s Health Regulations (when the other woman is the partner who is also intended to be the child’s parent.)

My conclusion, as that of my colleague’s E. Hayut, but by a different rationale and reasons, whereby had my opinion been heard we were to accept the Petition and order the State to permit the First Petitioner to extract eggs, fertilize them, and implant them in the uterus of the Second Petitioner.

                                                                              Justice (Ret.)

Justice E. Rubinstein:

"Then [God - eds. note] remembered her way of integrity [Mother Rachel - eds. note],

a fetus was exchanged in [her - eds. note] sister's womb"

(Even Chug Piyut, attributed to Rabi Eleazar Ha-Kalir, from Rosh Hashana's first morning prayer's liturgical poems)   

Background and Essence

1. The First Petitioner – Liat Moshe (hereinafter: “Liat” or “the First Petitioner”) – wishes to bring a genetic child into the world through the Second Petitioner – Dana Glisko (hereinafter: “Dana” or “the Second Petitioner”) – her life partner for about a decade now. The difficulty at the basis of this Petition is rooted – it seems – in the difficulties in carrying a pregnancy by the First Petitioner, and the Petition is for eggs from her body be implanted in the uterus of the Second Petitioner so that the child be linked to them both – a genetic link to the First Petitioner, and a physiological link to the Second Petitioner – and thus both of their motherhoods be realized. Once again this Court is called upon to pronounce upon an issue that is not one our fathers and mothers anticipated as there was no real possibility, only few decades ago, that the medical and technological advances would lead to it (HCJ 4077/12, Jane Doe v. The Ministry of Health, para. 1 of my judgment (2013) (hereinafter: the Sperm Bank case.))
2. On September 1, 2013 we decided (by majority) to reject the Petitioners’ request – to implant an egg taken from the First Petitioner’s body, fertilized and then implanted in the uterus of the Second Petitioner – and thus in light of the current state of the law. So that the Petitioners know where they stand without delay, the decision was handed down without reasons, by the majority comprised of President A. Grunis, Deputy President M. Naor, Justice S. Joubran and myself, against the dissenting opinions of Justice E. Arbel, Justice E. Hayut and Justice H. Melcer. The facts of the case and the parties’ arguments were broadly detailed in the opinion of my colleague Justice Hayut, the core of her position will be presented below, and the same outcome, but by a different reasoning was reached by my colleague Justice Arbel. It so happened that the majority opinion in this judgment was not written in the regular order, but only after the dissenting opinions. With all best intentions to find in favor of the Petitioners, we believe that the significant strides made by the State, including during the deliberation in this case, as detailed by Justice Hayut is the best possible without legislative amendments; despite the appealing proposals of our colleagues. Therefore we present immediately below the reasons that led us – the majority justices – to reject the petition.
3. The essence of our reasons is that the current state of Israeli law, on the level of existing law, does not permit what the Petitioners request, and this because the Embryo Carrying Agreements Law (Approval of  the Agreement and the Status of the Child) 5756-1996 (hereinafter: the Surrogacy Law) does not apply on such circumstances, as will be briefly detailed below, and effectively even our colleagues do not dispute this. The Eggs Donation Law 5770-2010 (hereinafter: the Eggs Donation Law) does not apply either, in our opinion, and we did not see it fit to join the constitutional position of our colleague Justice Hayut, who “reads into” the exceptions committee’s powers under the law (article C in chapter C) the authority in this case as well, an authority which the legislature did not grant, and explicitly so, perhaps due to advice from a governmental body which itself is not acceptable to us under the circumstances. This advice, as we will show below, highlights the tension between the words of the Legislature and the powers of the Court. Finally, the People’s Health Regulations (In Vitro Fertilization), 5747-1987 (hereinafter: the IVF Regulations,) which our colleague Justice Arbel wishes to use are no longer suitable, in our view, to what is requested, following the legislation of the Eggs Donation Law. There is therefore no lawful way currently to assist the Petitioners beyond what the State was prepared to do after the negotiation and changes in its position.
4. In this context let us recall, as Justice Hayut noted in paragraph 11, during the long hearings in this Petition (four time before an extended panel of this Court) the Ministry of Health issued on July 21, 2013 a protocol regarding “The Taking of Sperm, Eggs or Fertilized Eggs Out of Israel” which permits the Petitioners to perform the requested implantation outside of the country. This protocol allows the taking out of eggs extracted in Israel, among others, “for the purposes of realizing parenting… for the woman from whom the eggs were extracted,” with the approval of the exceptions committee. In a notice by the State (dated August 17, 2013) it was also said that the implementation team for the recommendations of the Mor Yossef Committee, which – as noted by Justice Hayut in paragraph 2 – recommended to extend the circle of those eligible to bring children into the world through surrogacy by including “single women who have medical conditions preventing them from creating a pregnancy” prepared a summarizing document in anticipation of legislative amendments.
5. And now for further detail. We will first note that in the medical world the procedure requested by the Petitioners is termed “Partner Assisted Reproduction/ Reciprocal IVF” (hereinafter: Reciprocal IVF.) Reciprocal IVF has become over the years fairly common in fertility clinics around the world for female same sex couples despite its high cost compared to “regular” IVF. This is because it allows both partners to participate in the process of creating the child, through dividing the “maternal function” between the partner who furnishes the egg (hereinafter: the genetic mother) and the partner who carries the pregnancy (hereinafter: the physiological mother) (see Lilith Ryiah, The G.I.F.T of Two Biological and Legal Mothers, 9 AM. U.J. GENDER SOC. POL’Y & L. 207 (2001); Dorothy A. Greenfield and Emre Seli, Assisted Reproduction in Same Sex Couple, 289, 291 Principles of Oocyte and Embryo Donation (Mark V. Sauer ed., 2013)).
6. In their amended petition, the Petitioners challenge two pieces of legislation that regulate the use of artificial reproductive technologies: the first is the Surrogacy Law, and the second is the Eggs Donation Law, as mentioned. My colleagues, Justices Hayut and Arbel, agree about the inherent misfit between the routes regulated in the Surrogacy Law and the medical procedure requested by the Petitioners. But they believe we should accommodate them through other legal paths, and as to those their opinions differ, as discussed.
7. In a realistic world, there are three potential scenarios where the State may be called upon to approve the medical procedure of reciprocal IVF between women partners: couple 1 – where both partners have healthy eggs and are able to carry a pregnancy; couple 2 – where one partner has healthy eggs but is unable to carry a pregnancy; couple 3 – where one partner has unhealthy eggs but is able to carry a pregnancy. Still, when one partner has unhealthy eggs and is unable to carry a pregnancy there is inherently no realistic possibility to initiate a process of reciprocal IVF. These scenarios before us when we examine the different statutes and the purposes behind them. We now move on to review the paths in which my colleagues walked in searching for a lawful route to realize the Petitioners’ wishes to bring into the world a child, who would be genetically linked to Liat, together with her partner – Dana – who is meant to carry the pregnancy with Liat’s fertilized eggs (and a sperm donation, of course), as well as to explain why our views differ. We will then address the Petitioners' arguments regarding the unconstitutionality of the Surrogacy Law, while the fundamental position as to its inapplicability is acceptable to us all, both majority and minority justices.

Accepting the Petition through the Eggs Donation Law?

8. Justice Hayut identifies section 11 of the Eggs Donation Law as the primary obstacle to realizing the Petitioners’ wishes, in light of the demand that the recipient be a woman who “cannot due to a medical condition become pregnant with the eggs in her body, or who has another medical condition which justifies using another woman’s eggs in order to have a child” (emphasis added – E.R.). Once my colleague reached the conclusion that the Eggs Donation Law infringes the Petitioners’ constitutional rights to autonomy (para. 24), to family life and to parenthood (para. 25), the constitutionality of the infringement was examined. It was said that the arrangement in the Eggs Donation Law was for a worthy purpose, but does not meet the proportionality requirements, because article C of the Eggs Donation Law creates an exception committee under the law, but “without granting the committee a sufficiently flexible authority to consider individual and exceptional cases that warrant diverging from the law’s provisions” (para. 34, and see also paras. 30-32.) Justice Hayut therefore suggest constitutional relief of reading into the Eggs Donation Law an additional sub-section – section 20(a)(5) – that would authorize the exceptions committee to approve eggs donation in circumstances where there are “exceptional and special reasons to do so” (para. 35.)
9. Justice Hayut therefore proposes that the Eggs Donation Law would allow the exceptions committee to approve an eggs donation for a recipient who had not pointed to a medical need for donation. Unlike the content of section 11 of the Eggs Donation Law, according to which – in the words of its heading – “a request for donation for the purposes of birth” may be submitted by a woman who is unable due to medical reasons to become pregnant with the eggs in her body and for using another woman’s eggs including for surrogacy. As much as we would like to, the history of the exceptions committee makes it difficult to support this position, though I do believe the Legislature would do well to consider authorizing the committee to consider exceptional cases on a broader basis than it has. The current state of the law, until the “amended” legislation is in effect cannot, in our view, encompass more than what the State is willing to agree to, that is, taking the eggs out from the country without penalty as detailed above (para. 4.)
10. Until the Eggs Donation Law was passed in 2010, eggs donation was regulated by the IVF Regulations which permitted eggs donation only from a woman who was “undergoing fertility treatment and where a supervising physician determined that the extraction of eggs advances her treatment” (reg. 4(1)). The restriction in the IVF Regulations on the identity of the donor created a national shortage in the pool of eggs for donation. In 2000, a public professional committee, headed by Rabbi Dr. Mordechai Halperin of the Ministry of Health, was convened in order to study the issue of eggs donation in Israel (hereinafter: the Halperin Committee). The Halperin Committee recommended to make eggs donation possible also from women who are not undergoing fertility treatments, and this only for the purposes of fertilization and in return for “comprehensive compensation” (sections 7(a) and 9(b) of the Halperin Committee’s recommendations.) It should be noted, that in the Committee’s recommendations there was no explicit demand that the recipient would have a medical need for donation. And so, in section 4(2) of the recommendations it was said that the donation recipient would be “a woman past the age of minority and an Israeli citizen whose age at the time of the eggs’ implantation in her body is under 51 years” – this and no more. Still, it is important to note that the recommendations of the Halperin Committee were not presented as is to the Knesset as a bill (see Mordechai Halperin, Eggs Donation in Israel – Dilemmas and Recommendations, Medicine and Law – The Jubilee Book 165 (2001)).
11. In 2007, the Eggs Donation Bill, 5767-2007 was published in Government Bills 289, p. 292 (hereinafter: the Bill ) and it matured into legislation only in 2010. As was said in the explanatory notes:

“The proposed statute is intended to regulate the different aspects involved in extraction and donation of eggs in Israel, and the use of these eggs. The essence of the proposed statute is to regulate eggs donation for the purposes of having children, but it also includes provisions that allow, under certain circumstances, use of donated eggs as described, for the purposes of research as well.”

As opposed to the Halperin Committee’s recommendations, section 11 of the Bill proposed to limit donations to a recipient who points to a medical condition (for a review of the many differences between the Halperin Committee’s recommendations and the Eggs Donation Bill, 5767-2007, see Smadar Noy, Daniel Mishori and Yali Hashesh, Gold Eggs Laying Geese – The Eggs Donation Bill 5767, Refu’a U’Mishpat 36, 161, 175-79 (2007)). The explanatory notes for section 11 clarify that the requesting woman may also point to the existence of “other justifying reasons” (there, p. 297, emphasis added – E.R.). Additionally, in section 21(e) of the Bill it was proposed to grant the exceptions committee the following powers:

“To approve the extraction of eggs, the allocation of eggs or the implantation of eggs, according to the request of a supervising physician as defined in section 18, should the committee be satisfied that under the circumstances there are exceptional  and special reasons to do so.”

The explanatory notes clarified that the unique reasons are those “which cannot be anticipated in advance, and this without requiring an amendment to the statute” (there, p. 304, emphasis added – E.R.) The catch all section that aimed to authorize the exceptions committee to consider “exceptional and special reasons” was deliberately removed by the sub-committee of the Labor, Welfare and Health Committee that discussed the statue. This removal was criticized in my colleague Justice Hayut’s opinion (paras. 21-22, 38.) A question remains, on the “legislative intent” level, whether even had the catch all section been enacted into the Eggs Donation Law, was there place under the circumstances before us for the exceptions committee to have approved egg donation where the recipient does not demonstrate any medical need, because we are concerned with a case where it is seemingly clear that the law did not have in mind in its origin. We shall review the legislative history in order to uncover this.

12. The minutes of the meetings of the sub-committee of the Labor, Welfare and Health Committee reveal that the Ministry of Health’s legal advisor, Adv. M. Hibner Harel, wished to create through the catch all section “an exit strategy, there are things in life I do not anticipate today” (sub-committee meeting, dated November 3, 2008.) Things to this effect were quoted by Justice Hayut in paragraph 21. And indeed justice Hayut believes that the catch all section should have covered “cases such as the one before us where the recipient has no medical need for an eggs donation but there are other reasons the justify permitting the donation” (para. 22.) However, were we to take a closer look at the sub committee’s discussions from November 3, 2008 we find – it seems – that the catch all section, before it was removed, was not designed to resolve such cases. During the discussion Rabbi Dr. Halperin expressed his concern that “the catch all section makes everything else redundant. It compromises anonymity, infringes the woman’s rights, infringes the man’s rights. It is a section that violates all the rights.” Adv. M. Hivner Harel clarified that “this section was actually born out of the shortage in eggs donation for research… this section was written for catastrophes. It was not born as a catch all section for cases that are not catastrophes” (there, p. 46, emphasis added – E.R.) Is the scenario of partners wishing to perform a procedure of reciprocal in vitro fertilization one that is a “catastrophe”? I doubt it. Let us recall that the medical procedure – reciprocal IVF – as requested by the Petitioners was anticipated and familiar to professional bodies, including in FA (Tel Aviv Dis.) 60320/07, T.Z. v. The Attorney General, State Attorney – District of Tel Aviv (2012) (hereinafter: the T.Z. case.) This was a case where in 2006 a lesbian couple secured the approval of the Ministry of Health’s legal advisor herself to perform the procedure of reciprocal IVF. I will later discuss the distinctions between that case and ours. It is therefore doubtful whether, it was actually proposed to legislate the catch all section in order to provide a solution for the procedure the petitioners request to perform.
13. The foreseeability of the procedure requested by the Petitioners is seemingly also inferred from the sub-committee’s discussions in regards to the drafting of section 22(a)(2) which addresses the designation of a donation from particular donor to a particular recipient for “religious or social” reasons:

“Chair Aryeh Eldad:

If there is an opening for lesbians, there is also an opening for the best friend. It is unclear what it is, but there is opening for the exceptions committee to discuss and say she can’t. This is a good opening.” (Minutes of sub-committee of the Labor, Welfare and Health Committee for Reviewing the Eggs Donation Bill, 5769-2008 (November 3, 2008.)) (emphases added – E.R.)

It seems that in the committee there was the opinion that saw section 22(a)(2) of the Eggs Donation Law the door to the exceptions committee for permitting lesbian couples non anonymous donations of eggs from one partner to the other who needs the donation for “a medical need” (couple number 3 in the scenarios presented in paragraph 7 above.)

14. My colleague Justice Hayut quoted extensively (para. 21) things from the discussion of the sub-committee, though at the end of the day it was decided not to include a catch all section, as a result of Rabbi Dr. Halperin noting during the discussion that “It is better to remove section 18 (approval in special cases – E.R.) and leave it to the court […] The court permits things that the law prohibits. Not just the Supreme Court, but also the District Court. There are many examples. When there is a real need it finds the way, even if it is in violation of the explicit law.” And in response to the comment by the Chair, Professor Eldad, that “the court cannot operate in violation of the law, maybe we can add here a catch all section that authorizes the court as an exception to the exception,” Rabbi Dr. Halperin replied “but this does not need to be written. The court does that anyway even without catch all sections. So we do not need this.”

My colleague criticizes these things as “puzzling and mistaken reasoning.” I regret that Dr. Halperin, who is a rabbi, a gynecologist and a legal expert, and an author of many works in medicine, and in particularly in the field of fertility “a symptomatic dysfunction” – that is, the conventional wisdom common in different circles as if the Court does as it wills. No matter what the law is, the Court walks its own path. The law is not a “pick your own adventure” even, and perhaps first and foremost, to the Court. The Court’s role is to interpret, and often the law is subject to different interpretations between which the Court must decide (on the issue of interpretation see – for instance – the series of books by Professor Aharon Barak on Interpretation in the Law, which reviews all aspects of the issue.) Moreover, when the legislature “burdens” the court with interpretive duties in matters that are subject to great moral and public debated, such as the phrase “the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state” in section 1A of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and section 2 of Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation. However, where the Legislature’s position is clear, even under the legislative purpose as it the statute was enacted (as opposed to questions of interpretation where a statute is open to interpretation) – the Court must exercise great caution and it is not free to decide as it wishes, even when a worthy cause is at stake – and there the Court must wait for the Legislature.

15. Indeed, even were the proposed catch all section in the Eggs Donation bill enacted into the Eggs Donation Law, and in my view it should have been, the question remains – and I shall leave it for determination in future cases – whether it would have been appropriate to permit the Petitioners’ request, and this in light of the primacy given by the Eggs Donation Law to physiological parenthood over genetic parenthood. In Israeli legislation there are several statutes that address parenthood (for the different models, see Yechezkel Margalit, On the Determination of Legal Parenthood by Consent as a Response to the Challenges of Determining Parenthood in Modern Times, Din U’Dvarim 6, 533 (2012) (hereinafter: Margalit); Mordechai Halperin, "A Woman Conceived Seed and Gave Birth" Biological Parenting and Genetic Parenting, Weekly Parasha – Legal Reviews of Torah Portions, Vayikra 110 (A. HaCohen and M. Vigoda, eds. 2012.)) Section 3(a) of the Woman’s Equal Opportunity Law, 5711-1951 and section 14 of the Legal Competence and Guardianship Law, 5722-1962 reflect approach that bemoan the genetic element, an approach absent from the Adoption Law 5741-1981 and the Eggs Donation Law and even under some views in the Surrogacy Law, where the genetic element is somewhat marginalized and allows the establishment of parenthood not on the basis of clear genetic foundations (see Hagai Kalai, Suspected Parents: Legal Supervision and Control over Non Heteronormative Parents Following HCJ 566/11 Mamat-Magad v. The Minister of Interior, Law in the Net – Human Rights – Decision Commentary Updates 28, 5, 9-13 (2014) (hereinafter: Kalai.)) I will admit that in my eyes genetic parenthood within surrogacy is primary and therefore also the theoretical and moral approval of surrogacy. It should be noted that rulers of Jewish law are split on the question of which woman is considered the mother in the case of surrogacy, and see paragraph 36 below. In any event, in order to fit our case under the confines of such a “catch all section” it would have been necessary to create a model of “inherent constructed co-parenthood” and this remains in question.
16. What is the model of parenthood reflected in the Eggs Donation Law? Section 42 of the law stipulates that the child born of an egg donation shall be the child of the recipient and this without any need for issuing a parenthood order. In other words, through the Eggs Donation Law, despite the genetic link between the egg donor and the child, the physiological contribution of the recipient in creating the child is privileged. The Egg Donations Law, as we detail further in the context of the Surrogacy Law, aimed to “delink” the egg donor from the child and the recipient (see in this context of disconnecting the legal link in section 42(c) of the Eggs Donation Law, which mandates the severance of legal rights and obligations between the donor and the child; see also the references in the Eggs Donation Law in defining an “intended mother” and a “carrying mother” in the definitions section to the Surrogacy Law which at its basis is the view of “delinking” the “intended parents” from the “carrying mother” and in effect from the child and the “carrying mother.”) Only the issue of delinking is similar in both statutes.
17. The purpose of the Eggs Donation Law is expressed in section 1 of the law which stipulates that the law is essentially intended to regulate eggs donation for the purposes of birth for women who cannot realize their parenthood without an eggs donation, and this “while maximum preservation of their dignity, and protection of the rights and the health of the donor and the recipient.” This is also reflected in the legislative history: “realizing parenthood is a paramount value in the State of Israel… We must understand that when the State of Israel approved this Bill it was concerned with the realization of parenthood by women who would be unable to do so without an eggs donation” (Adv. M. Hibner Harel, minutes of discussions in the sub-committee, dated February 18, 2008, emphasis added – E.R.) The goal of realizing parenthood by the recipient, despite the absence or deficiency in genetic material, is also inferred from the medical route to receiving an eggs donation:  “Women who suffer ovarian dysfunction, a lack of ovaries, or reduced ovarian reserves; women who repeatedly produce eggs and/or embryos of compromised quality; women who have failed, after repeated attempts, to become pregnant through IVF treatments; carriers of a severe genetic defect; women over the age of 45” (Orly Loten, Eggs Donation for Fertilization and Research, The Knesset – Center of Research and Information (November 13, 2007)).
18. The fundamental approach of limiting the donation to a recipient with a medical need has, therefore, medical justifications, such as avoiding medical treatment that is unnecessary (Michal Agmon Gonen and Keren Dabach Deutsch, The Physician’s Right To Refuse Providing Fertility Treatments, Refu’a U’Mishpat 33, 13 (2005)), as well as social justifications such as preventing the use of donations for purposes of genetic engineering (Ruth Zafran, There Can Be Two Mothers – The Definition of Motherhood to a Child Born to a Female Same Sex Couple, Din U’Dvarim 3 351, 362 (2008) (hereinafter: Zafran.)) Creating a distinction between recipients who require the donation due to a medical need and recipients who seek the donation without demonstrating a medical need is at its core consistent with the legislative purpose, which is protecting the health of the donor and the recipient involved in eggs donation for the purposes of having a child. We therefore find that the approval granted by the exceptions committee to a donation by the First Petitioner to the Second Petitions would doubtfully, on its face, fit into the harmony within the entire provisions of the law in light of the primacy it affords physiological parenthood in cases where the woman is unable to realize her genetic motherhood. Realizing the desire of a woman, such as in the case before us, to bring into the world a child with genetic code that is similar to hers on its face diverges from the rationale motivating the Eggs Donation Law which was designed to assist women with medical conditions involving their eggs to realize their right to parenthood. Had the law intended for it to be possible to give an eggs donation to a healthy woman due to the medical need of the donor as well, presumably this would have been said explicitly (LCA 5638/95, Migdal Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shamur, IsrSC 49(4) 865, 871 (1996); CA 4100/97, Ridner v. Vizaltier, IsrSC 52(4) 580, 594 (1998); AAA 1721/10,  Ganei Tikva Local Council v. Kopelvitch, para. 12 (2011)).
19. At the basis of the law, therefore, is the giving of an egg donation to a woman who has a medical need for the donation. This realizes the law’s primary objective – to assist women with defects in their eggs to realize their right to parenthood. The distinction the law created between women who have a medical need and women who do not, seemingly does not discriminate against the Second Petitioner, in light of the existing relevant difference (HCJ 4124/00, Yekutieli v. The Minister for Religious Affairs, para. 35 of President Beinisch’s judgment (2010)). Thus, as opposed to my colleague Justice Hayut, I do not believe we are concerned with the constitutional level of examining the Eggs Donation Law, as this law to begin with did not come to cast its net over our case.
20. The opinion of my colleague Justice Hayut emphasized the matter of T.Z., a case from 2006 where the Ministry of Health permitted, before the legislation of the Eggs Donation Law, to women partners to donate eggs to one another. The T.Z. case was brought as evidence that the Ministry of Health “see the female couple a family unit that justifies granting their request while considering the circumstances of their shared lives” (Hayut, para. 21.) However, I am afraid that this case does not constitute evidence. Examining the facts of that case reveals that the receiving partner had a clear medical need for a donation from her partner, unlike the circumstances of the Second Petitioner. In other words, had the Eggs Donation Law already been on the books 2006 when the partners in T.Z. sought approval for an eggs donation, they would have been granted such approval according to the law, as the recipient meets the restriction legislated into section 11 of the law due to her medical need. And the other partner would have been permitted to donate, as the Eggs Donation Law removed the requirement for the donor to be in the midst of reproductive treatments. This route was proposed to the Petitioners during the hearing held on November 19, 2012 – it was suggested that Dana would donate to Liat, who has a proved medical need, a non-anonymous donation, as was also done in T.Z., but this proposal was rejected by the Petitioners.
21. When reciprocal IVF between women partners was approved in the past, before the Eggs Donation Law was legislated, it was done according to medical policy that was later supported through primary legislation. My colleague Justice Hayut described (para. 20) the Attorney General’s Guidelines  from November 24, 2009 (following a discussion dated September 6, 2009) and thus the reason that the approval of the Attorney General was necessary in T.Z. was that the donor in that case was not at the time undergoing fertility treatments, and this limitation was lifted by the Eggs Donation Law, and indeed was not an obstacle for the Petitioners in our case either.

In the absence of the recipient’s “medical need,” even had the Attorney General’s Guidelines from 2009 applied, the Petitioners could not have relied upon it. The novelty in the Attorney General’s Guidelines was lifting the restriction imposed by the IVF Regulations on the identity of the donor, while the hindrance faced by the Petitioners here stems from the requirement that the donor would have a medical need for a donation, a restriction that, as noted, is inferred from the legislative history, the legislative purpose  and the primacy the Eggs Donation Law affords physiological parenthood.

22. Were we to return to the scenarios we presented at the outset of the judgment, the Eggs Donation Law in its present version resolves only the problems of couple number 3, who seeks a procedure of eggs donation from a partner with healthy eggs who wishes to make a non-anonymous donation to her partner who has unhealthy eggs and would carry the pregnancy. By adding the catch all section, my colleague Justice Hayut seeks to additionally allow couple number 2 – where one of the partners has healthy eggs but is unable to carry the pregnancy – to come under the provisions of the law, in order to realize Liat’s wishes to be a genetic parent through her partner. It should be noted, that even had the catch all section been included in the Eggs Donation Law, as my colleague suggests, this would not resolve the problems of couple number 1 – two partners who have no proven medical condition – but still wish to pursue the process of reciprocal IVF in order to create a common genetic physiological child.
23. It is quite possible that there is a social need, in light of the rapid developments in the area of relationships as experienced in our world, for eliminating the requirement for the recipient’s medical need as established in section 11 and this in light of the desire to expand the circle of those eligible for an eggs donation – for example, in the Petitioners’ case or the case of single men or a male homosexual couples who need the donation as a result of an inherent biological deficit (Haim Avraham, On Parenthood, Surrogacy and the State between Them, forthcoming in Laws 8 (2015) (hereinafter: Avraham)), or to resolve the issue of bastards (Yossi Green, Is There Resolution for the Problem of Bastards through Medical Technologies in the Field of Reproduction?, Moznei Mishpat 7, 411 (2010)). This expansion lays first and foremost in the hands of the Legislature, who is charged with weighting the balances. In any event, and certainly in light of the legislative history on one hand and the partial solution proposed by the State on the other hand, it seems there is no place to authorize the exceptions committee to create medical public policy out of thin air through a catch all section and while eliminating the requirement for medical need in specific cases – this without any guidelines in the form of legislative instructions, which are possible through a not too great legislative effort.

Approving the Request through The People’s Health Regulations (In Vitro Fertilization), 5747-1987?

24. My colleague Justice Arbel, believes too that the Petitioners cannot prevail through the Eggs Donation Law, because “one cannot donate something to themselves, because that cannot be considered a donation” (para. 15,) and found that there is no justification to intervene in the requirement for a medical need under section 11 of the Eggs Donation Law (para. 14.) Also she suggested in her opinion an alternative path to the one proposed by Justice Hayut to accomplish a procedure of reciprocal IVF as requested by the Petitioners, through the IVF Regulations (paras. 17-18.) According to Justice Arbel, it is possible to apply the People’s Health Regulations to the situation requested by the Petitioners without difficulty, as it has already been done in the T.Z. case.
25. However, as we have already shown above (para. 20,) the circumstances of T.Z. are greatly different from the circumstances of the Petition before us. It is true that the Attorney General’s Guidelines from November 30, 2009 addresses a donation between women partners, saying that “this should not be seen as an act that violates the public policy.” However, in all the cases detailed as the foundation for this premise, which were presented at the discussion held on November 24, 2009, the recipient partner demonstrated a medical need for the donation from her partner. Meaning, we are concerned with cases that are clearly covered by the current legal arrangement established by the Eggs Donation Law, which is not seemingly the case in the case here.
26. Moreover, the language of regulation 4 of the IVF Regulations can be viewed as evidence for the indispensability of the requirement for a medical need:

“Extraction of an egg shall be done only from a woman who has met one of these conditions: (1) she is undergoing fertility treatments and a supervising physician has determined that extracting the eggs would advance her treatment; (2) she is not undergoing fertility treatments, but is interested in preserving fertility, due to her age…” (Emphasis added – E.R.)

And indeed – the definitions section of the Regulations distinguishes between a procedure of “taking an egg” which involves extracting eggs from a woman and implanting them in her body and a process of “egg donation” which involves taking an egg from a woman and implanting it in the body of another woman. Regulation 3 stipulates that taking eggs will be done only “for the purpose of in vitro fertilization and implantation after its fertilization.” We learn that the taking process, which involves the IVF process of one woman only, cannot be applied to the process of reciprocal IVF as requested by the Petitioners. Indeed “in the past the Ministry of Health approved the requested process” (para. 23), as my colleague Justice Arbel noted, but I fear that now, after the Eggs Donation Law was legislated, we are living in a different legal reality, and it seems the permission granted by the Ministry of Health became obsolete once the Eggs Donation Law was passed, as it regulated what was previously allowed through the Ministry’s approval – a process of non-anonymous donation of an egg from a woman not undergoing fertility treatments to a woman requiring the donation for medical reasons. The Attorney General’s Guidelines from 2009 implicitly exists through the Eggs Donation Law, and thus it is difficult to use the Regulations to approve a procedure where an egg is taken from the First Petitioner's body to be implanted in the Second Petitioner’s uterus. I fear such a procedure has no source in the IVF Regulations. In light of the above regarding the T.Z. case, it is also impossible to say that the law aggravated the circumstances of women like the Petitioners, and of course the Legislature holds the key to any amendments.

Interim Conclusion – Perhaps I Will Build a Family Trough Her (Genesis 16:2)?

27. As mentioned, my colleagues Justices Hayut and Arbel propose to pave a lawful way for the medical procedure requested by the Petitioners be it through the Eggs Donation Law or through the IVF Regulations, respectively. They both rejected applying the Surrogacy Law on the circumstances at hand, due to the absence of the severance element between the carrying mother and the child. Only their proposals create, in effect, a “D tour” of sorts for the Surrogacy Law, only for the sake of offering a solution for this case, and in my view the current state of the law does not support this. It is a good question whether a broad interpretation is appropriate before the Legislature has had its say.
28. I will add several comments: the surrogacy and eggs donation procedures are in effect two aspects of the same medical procedure. In both processes – aside from surrogacy cases where the intended mother requires both the services of a uterus and an eggs donation – the function of motherhood is divided between two different women: the genetic function and the physiological function. In both processes there is Woman A who provides an egg to Woman B in whose body the fertilized egg is implanted. The difference between the procedures stems only from the agreement between the parties that determines who will be the parent of the child born as a result of the medical procedure:

“When egg is retrieved from one woman, fertilized, and then implanted in a second woman, the first woman could be functioning either as an egg donor – with no intention of rearing the child – or, alternatively, as the intended rearing mother. Moreover, the second woman (i.e., the woman who carries the fertilized egg to term) might be functioning as a ‘surrogate’ or, alternatively, as the intended rearing mother. In both situations, the cast of characters is identical. What differentiates the two circumstances is not the functions performed by parties, but rather the intentions of the parties upon entering into the arrangement. These intentions define the roles of the parties and should determine legal maternal status” (Anne Reichman Schiff, Solomonic Decisions in Egg Donation: Unscrambling the Conundrum of Legal Maternity, 80 Iowa L. Rev. 265, 277 (1995). (Emphases added – E.R.)

And further:

“An egg donor recipient woman and a gestational surrogate differ only in maternal intent, usually also reflected by legal contract. This ‘only,’ however, yields a cosmos of different contested meanings of motherhood.” (Dion Farquhr, The Other Machine: Discourse and Reproductive Technologies 151 (1996) (Emphasis added – E.R.)

The Agreement between the parties depends on the medical need of the woman who initiates the procedure. When a woman requires an egg donation, the requested process is termed “egg donation” and when she requires assistance in carrying a pregnancy the requested process is termed “surrogacy” – whereas the medical procedure itself essentially remains the same, identical.

29. Evidence for this can be found in sections 4(b) and 6(b) of the Eggs Donation Law:

“4(b) The instruction of section 4(a) would not apply to an eggs extraction from the body of an intended mother, to the lab treatment of eggs extracted as such and to their implantation in the body of a carrying mother for the purposes of executing an agreement for carrying embryo , under the Agreements Law.

…

6(b) There shall be no implantation of eggs but for implantation in the body of a recipient or of a carrying mother who entered into an agreement with a recipient for carrying embryo under the Agreements Law.” (Emphasis added – E.R.)

The identical medical procedure – extracting eggs from Woman A and implanting them in Woman B – is regulated by two different statutes. The root of the differences between the legislative arrangements is in the social agreement between the parties to the procedure and the State. Implanting a fertilized egg in the body of an intended mother according to the Surrogacy Law, is not considered a donation. Section 4(b) and 6(b) of the Eggs Donation Law clarify that there is a social choice in terms of categorizing the same procedure differently according to the medical need motivating the parties. I am afraid, that introducing a catch all section into the Eggs Donation Law, which would allow Woman A to donate an egg to a woman who has no medical need means the de facto creation of a surrogacy route under the Eggs Donation Law. This would require thought and examining legislative harmony. Extracting eggs from Woman A, fertilizing it and implanting it in the uterus of Woman B who herself has no medical need for a donation appears to put us close to a quasi-surrogacy procedure. Even in a surrogacy procedure, the carrying mother has not medical need for an egg donation and the fertilized egg is implanted in her body despite the lack of a medical need, this only if the link is severed after birth. See section 1 of this Law (the definition of “carrying mother”) as well as section 2 which addresses “implantation of fertilized eggs for the purposes of impregnating a carrying mother in order to give away the born child to the intended parents” (emphasis added – E.R.). The obstacle barring the Petitioners from coming under the confines of the Eggs Donation Law – the medical need – does not exist when we are concerned with a surrogacy procedure, thought, it is contingent upon severance, which in this case is the opposite from what the Petitioners seek.

30. The proposal to make use of the IVF Regulations, too, sounds like a “circumventing” of the Surrogacy Law because, indeed as long as the egg extraction is done for the purposes of fertilization in the body of the woman from whom the egg had been extracted, the legal arrangement which applies is the Regulations. However, once the egg is implanted in another woman’s body, the two relevant statutes are the Surrogacy Law and the Eggs Donation Law, and the determination as to the applying statute is examined in light of the intent of the party who requested the procedure in order to realize their parenthood. In our case, the First Petitioner seeks to create a child who will carry her genetic code, through the implantation of a fertilized egg from her body in the uterus of the Second Petitioner who has no medical need for the procedure. This all means that the using of the Eggs Donation Law and the IVF Regulations in order to enable a procedure where an egg is implanted in the Second Petitioner without a proven medical need, is therefore kind of circumvention of the Surrogacy Law and its provisions – an arrangement that allows, in effect, surrogacy where there is already a preexisting relationship between the intended mother and the recipient mother which is the foundation of the surrogacy, and this without applying the Surrogacy Law and the checks and balances included in its provisions, and in violation of the law’s approach in its current version.

Approving the Request through the Surrogacy Law?

31. To complete the picture, I shall address the Petitioners’ argument as to applying the Surrogacy Law which was at the foundation of their Petition from its outset. The State maintains that there are two main barriers in the Petitioners’ way when wishing to rely on the provisions of the Surrogacy Law. The first, that they are not included in the circle of eligible women; and second, the absence of severing the link between the carrying mother and the child after the birth, in light of their declared intent to raise the child together. To the State, the procedure desired by the Petitioners inherently does not fall under the Surrogacy Law, and exceeds its purpose and its provisions because it “creates genetic, biological co-parenting.” This position was general acceptable to the Justices in the extended panel – who saw the Surrogacy Law as an arrangement of severance after birth – and was at the foundation of the decision dated September 24, 2012 to have the Petitioners amend their Petition so that it would address also the Eggs Donation Law.
32. And yet I shall explore the question whether surrogacy in and of itself requires severance between the carrying mother and the child. During the hearing on April 28, 2013 Justice Arbel wondered about this, and I myself raised the question (see the records.) My concern was on the values level, first and foremost. According to the State, the severance between the carrying mother and the “intended parents” is an overarching principle of the institution of surrogacy, whereas recognizing the carrying mother as a legal mother has far reaching consequences, that is, recognizing a surrogate as the child’s mother for all intents and purposes, and doing so against the narrow and balanced arrangement established by section 13 of the Surrogacy Law which allows the carrying mother to renege on the agreement – including severance – in extreme circumstances alone.

And indeed it is seemingly possible to find in the various provisions of the Surrogacy Law evidence for the State’s position. We mentioned section 1 which defines an agreement for carrying embryo as an “agreement between intended parents and a carrying mother whereby the carrying mother agrees to become pregnant via implantation of a fertilized egg and to carry the pregnancy for the intended parents” (emphasis added – E.R.). We also pointed to section 2. Moreover, section 19 of the law stipulates that entering into an agreement to carry an embryo not according to the path laid out in the law is a criminal offense, punishable by incarceration. The law clearly designs the route to be followed by parties entering into an agreement of contractual, commercial surrogacy which involves compensation for the carrying mother ("Commercial Surrogacy") and does not involve regulation as altruistic surrogacy.

33. From the explanatory notes of the Surrogacy Law we learn that the law aims to permit surrogacy agreements “under certain conditions and in a supervised manner” (see the Embryo Carrying Agreements  Bill (Approval of the Agreement and the Status of the Child), 5756- 1995 (Bills 5756 n. 2456, p. 259, December 6, 1995.) The existing limitations in the law are inherent to the design of the surrogacy mechanism in light of the concerns for the exploitation of the surrogate mother. The Surrogacy Law was proposed following a report by a committee headed by Justice (Ret.) Shaul Aloni, and I will concede that reading the law on its face – including reading the explanatory notes to the Bill – resound of surrogacy based on severance. The explanatory notes (there) speak of advance technologies that allow “bringing children into the world… with the assistance of a woman (carrying mother) willing to become pregnant and to carry a pregnancy in her uterus for a couple, with the genetic code of the couple or at least one of them (intending parents) and to give away the child to them upon birth” (emphasis added – E.R.). I will not, however, discussing – beyond the necessary scope, it seems, of the case at hand – a situation where surrogacy does not in itself require complete severance between the carrying mother and the child.

Surrogacy seeks, at its core, to use the ability of a particular woman to carry a pregnancy and this in order to assist another (HCJ 625/10, Jane Doe v. The Committee for Approving Agreements for Carrying Embryo under the Agreements Law, para. 12 of Deputy President Rivlin’s judgment (2011)). Assistance in carrying a pregnancy in itself does not necessarily mean there must be severance, and this may depend on the circumstances, but it does require legislation, and I must say this – with emphasis – at this stage already. It should be noted that in certain countries which opted to permit surrogacy (Britain, Australia and Finland) an altruistic model was selected, rather than contractual, commercial (which our Law is modeled after, as inferred also by its title – the Embryo Carrying Agreements  Law (Approval of the Agreement and the Status of the Child), 5756-1996.) The altruistic model, as opposed to the contractual, commercial model, is built on a foundation of a preexisting relationship between the surrogate and the intended parents (Nufar Lipkin and Eti Smama, From Vision to Shelf Product: The Crawling Normativation of Surrogacy in Israel, Mishpat U’Mimshal 15, 435, 449-453 (2013) (hereinafter: Lipkin and Smama)).

34. The normative advantage of the altruistic model is that it allows overcoming the concern as to the exploitation inherent to the paid surrogacy model, a model that the approach at its foundation is that the surrogate mother is but a service provided, while ignoring the uniqueness of the procedure and the costs it involves (Id., p. 489-490.) The existing relationship between the surrogate mother and the intended parents, on the basis of which the agreement is made, may negate and at least decrease the concern for the surrogate’s exploitation. The Israeli Surrogacy Law, which addresses – as noted – commercial surrogacy, was designed with particular emphasis on the interests of the intended parents, who are usually interested in receiving the child without committing to an ongoing relationship with the surrogate. However, this is not necessarily the only way it was possible to shape the relationship created in the framework of the agreement between the intended parents and the carrying mother.
35. It is not unnecessary to note that scholars of Jewish law have theorized that the child in the surrogacy procedure has two mothers and this because of the concern for prohibited relations (see Z. Lev, Test Tube Baby – the Status of the Surrogate Mother, Emek HaHalakha B 163, 169 (1989); David J. Bleich, Contemporary Halakhic Problems 107-108 (1977)). This, as we will see, is the strict position of Rabbi S.Z. Auerbach. This all means that determining whether we are concerned with severance or with a relationship is an epistemological choice resulting from public policy and is not imminent to the medical procedure itself. There are in fact those who would say that surrogacy has environmental consequences that implicate the child. Still, the Surrogacy Law in its current version, which wishes to severe the relationship between the carrying mother and the child and intended parents, leaves a period of “twilight” – between the child’s birth and the grant of the parenting order (sections 10-11 of the Surrogacy Law) – where legal status has yet to be given to the intended parents but the child has already been moved into their custody. In this short period of time, the generic link to the intended parents does not ensure them any legal status, but does ensure them custody, and only the parenting order afterwards is which creates the final severance. It seems that the law as it is, creates a period of time where both women (the carrying and the intended) are tied to the child, at the same time. However, clearly this was not the intention of the law, which was designed to regulate surrogacy on a contractual, commercial basis which is followed by severance. Still, I have decided to examine, in light of the Petitioners' arguments, the constitutionality of the Surrogacy Law in this regard.

Surrogacy – the Jewish Law

36. To the credit of Jewish law I will note that current rulers of Jewish law contemplate and deliberate the question of surrogacy, just as they do many questions of Jewish law that come out of the technological and medical advances prevalent in our times, as well as the new family configurations, whether they are single parents or couples (see Rabbi Z.N. Goldberg, Attributing Motherhood When Implanting An Embryo in the Uterus of Another, Tehumin 5 248 (1984); Rabbi M. Herschler, Halachic Problems of a Test Tube Baby, Halacha and Medicine 1, 307 (1980); Rabbi A Klab, Who is the Child’s Mother – The Parent or the Woman who Gave Birth?, Thumin 5, 260 (1984); Rabbi Y.B. Meir, In Vitro Fertilization – Attributing a Fetus Born to the Surrogate Mother and the Biological Mother, Asya 11, 25 (1986); Rabbi E. Bik, Attributing Motherhood in Embryo Implantation, Thumin 7, 266 (1987); Professor Michael Korinaldi, The Legal Status of a Child Born from Artificial Fertilization with a Sperm or an Egg Donor, Jewish Law Yearly 18-19, 295 (1992-1994); Professor Daniel Sinclair, Artificial Insemination and In Vitro Fertilization in Jewish Law: Comparative, Halachic-Methodological and Moral Perspectives, HaMishpat 9 291 (2004); Rachel Chishlvitz, Surrogacy Coupled with Eggs Donation: Legal and Halachic Perspectives, Refuah U’Mishpat 39, 82, 85 (2008)). Some of the rulers did not consider surrogacy in a positive light as they saw it as confusing and mixing. However, it seems it should be considered, though it is not at the hard of the issue, similarly to artificial insemination that was permitted where there was great need for it (for reservations about surrogacy see Kovetz Yeshurun, 21 535, 537 on behalf of Rabbi Y.S. Elyashiv and Rabbi S.Z. Auerbach; on permitting artificial insemination see Rabbi M. Feinstein following the M.H.R.S.M, Q.A. Igrot Moshe Even Ha’Ezer 1, 10.) What is this great need? Family continuation is seen as the woman’s (for instance, the woman who requests artificial insemination) request for assistance at her old age (“A stick in hand and a shovel for burial”), Bavli Ketubbot 64, 71) and see the Sperm Bank case, in paragraph 27 of my opinion. Is it possible to see the realization of the right to parenthood a great need? This may be an extension of the need “at old age” to a life that is meaningful and satisfactory.

Another question that is somewhat highlighted by our issue, is who is considered the mother of the child – the donor of the egg or the surrogate? Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (Nishmat Avraham 4, Even Ha’Ezer 2, 2) believed that the genetic mother – the egg donor – is the mother (Kovetz Yeshurun, p. 535-40) though perhaps later he came to doubt this (Yeshurun 21 (2009)) and see the references in Rabbi Dr. M. Halperin’s book Medicine, Reality, Halacha and the Word of the Medically Wise (2012) 22-23, 294-95. So believed, too, Rabbi I.M. Soloveitchik, The Law of a Test Tube Baby, Or HaMizrach 100, 122-128 (1981); see also Rabbi S. Goren, Implanting Embryo According to Halacha, HaTzofe 17 (1984); Rabbi Dr. E. Warhaftig, Annexure to the Discussion regarding Test Tube Babies, Thumin 5 268-269 (1984)), but for another opinion, Rabbi E.I. Waldenberg (Tzitz Eliezer, part 19, 40; 20, 49) who thought that the eggs do not belong to the body of the surrogate and she therefore would be considered the mother; and see also Rabbi Zalman Nehemia Goldberg, Tehumin 5 270. In his book, Rabbi Halperin presents the contrary position of Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef, Rabbi M. Brandsdorfer and Rabbi S.M. Amar who believe that the genetic mother is the mother (see the sources there, pages 294-295; and there are also opinions that have changed.) For a collection of opinions that essentially tip in favor of the surrogate’s motherhood, see also Olamot (lesson 33, 2009); but see Rabbi Aviad Bartov, Permitted through his Mother – and a Surrogate Mother, Shiurim B’Masechet Beitza, Har-Etzion Yeshiva, which summarizes (and see the references there) as follows: “Today it seems that the common Halachic practice is to say that the status of the fetus born of this arrangement (in vitro fertilization of the surrogate mother – E.R.) must be determined by the status of the mother who is the source of the test tube, rather than the surrogate mother.” The opinion of Rabbi S.Z. Auerbach, as I have heard it from Rabbi Professor Abraham Steinberg, was that there is no clear solution in either direction because there is not satisfactory evidence for full determination and thus both women must be seen “mother in strictness” (which would require, for instance, the conversion of one of them should she not be Jewish.) See also Rabbi Itzhak Shilat Medicine, Halacha and the Tora’s Intentions (2014) 222, 231, who brings from Nishmat Avraham (2 Ed.) Even Ha’Ezer 35. Ultimately in this case there is no need to determine who the mother is, as the goal is complete partnership between the two specific women, though this may come up in matters of singleness or of separation (see K.M. v. E.G., 13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 136 (Ct. App. 2004); Sanja Zgonjanin, What Does It Take To Be A (Lesbian) Parent? On Intent and Genetics 16 Hastings Women’s L. J. 251 (2004-2005)).

Does the Surrogacy Law Infringe upon the Constitutional Right?

37. The Surrogacy Law reflects the social agreement reached whereby “commercial surrogacy” was established for a narrow circle of intended parents who are a heterosexual couple (HCJ 2458/01, New Family v. The Committee for Approving Agreements for Carrying Embryo, IsrSC 57(1) 419, 437-38 (2002) (hereinafter: the New Family case.)) Does the existing arrangement in the Surrogacy Law infringe upon the Petitioners’ right to parenthood? Further, does creating a genetic, biological child within a lesbian relationship  was not in the Legislature’s mind when passing the Surrogacy Law, but since the First Petitioner wishes to realize her right to genetic parenthood by using her partner’s uterus, can her request rely on the Surrogacy Law?

The First Step – Is There an Infringement upon the Right to Parenthood?

38. The right to family life is a sub right that derives from the constitutional right to human dignity (HCJ 7052/03, Adalla Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel v. The Minister of Interior, IsrSC 61(2) 2002 (2006)). The right to parenthood is a granddaughter right to the right to family life and it encompasses various methods for fertility, reproduction and birth (Aharon Barak, The Constitution of the Family: Constitutional Aspects of Family Law, Mishpat V’Asakim 15, 13, 42 (2014) (hereinafter: Constitution of the Family); Aharon Barak Human Dignity – The Constitutional Right and its Daughters Vol. 2, 662-670 (2014)). There is no dispute that the right to parenthood was recognized repeatedly in the jurisprudence of this Court as a basic constitutional right (CA 5527/93, Nahmani v. Nahmani, IsrSC 49(1) 485, 499 (1995); CFH 7015/94, The Attorney General v. Jane Doe, IsrSC 50(1) 48, 102 (1995); CFH 2401/95, Nahmani v. Nahmani, IsrSC 50(4) 661, 775 (1996); the New Family case, p. 445; HCJ 2245/06, Dovrin v. The Prison Service, para. 12 of Justice Procaccia’s judgment (2006); HCJ 4293/01, New Family v. The Minister of Labor and Welfare, paras. 17-21 of Justice Procaccia’s judgment (2009) (hereinafter: HCJ New Family); HCJ 11437/05, Kav L’Oved v. The Minister of Interior, para. 38 of Justice Procaccia’s judgment (2011) (hereinafter: the Kav L’Oved case); the Sperm Bank case, para. 27 of my judgment and para. 8 of Justice Barak-Erez’s judgment (2013)).
39. The right to parenthood was recognized as a right with “negative” and “positive” aspects (HCJ New Family, para. 3 of President Beinisch’s judgment and para. 5 of Deputy President Rivlin’s judgment.) The negative aspect concerns protecting the individual from external intervention in the right and its exercise. The positive aspect goes to the state’s duty to assist the individual in exercising the right (see Aharon Barak, Interpretation in Law 3, 312 (1994); Aharon Barak, Proportionality in Law: Infringement on Constitutional Rights and its Limitations 44 (2010) (hereinafter: Barak, Proportionality)). The right to parenthood was repeatedly considered against technological developments in the area of reproduction. Surrogacy has been recognized as part of the right to parenthood, but was categorized as a process that belongs on the positive level of the right to parenthood (HCJ New Family, para. 23 of Justice Procaccia’s judgment.) For critiques on this categorization, see Kalai, p. 19-20. In any event, by both aspects, the right to parenthood is not absolute (Barak, Proportionality, p. 56-57.)
40. The Petition at hand raises, among others, the question of whether the right to parenthood includes the right to genetic parenthood specifically. This question was not explicitly contemplated in the case law, but the “voice of blood” – the genetic element – has been heard (CFH 7015/94, The Attorney General v. Jane Doe, IsrSC 56(1) 48, 102 (1995); the New Family case, p. 461; Pinhas Shiffman Family Law in Israel 132-133 (1989); the Kav L’Oved case, paras. 38-39 of Justice Procaccia’s judgment; CFH 1892/11, The Attorney General v. Jane Doe, para. 6 of Justice Joubran’s judgment (2011)). In the Sperm Bank case (paras. 43-45) I discussed the weakening of the genetic element, and that genetic parenthood cannot be considered to be the end all be all. This has support in Jewish law, too – “Happy is who does charity, one who raises orphan boys and girls in one’s home and brings them to be married” (Bavli, Ketubbot 50, 71); “Anyone teaching Torah to another’s son as if the child is his” (Bavli, Megila 13, 71); “I know no other father but you, as that who raises one is called father, rather than the only leading to birth” (Shemot Rabba, 46, 5, “and now, God, you are our father”); “Rabbi Hanina says ‘and her neighbors gave him a name that meant he was a child born to Naomi (Ruth 4, 17), as because Naomi gave birth and Ruth gave birth, but Ruth gave birth and Naomi raised he was therefore called for her” (Bavli, Sanhedrin 19, 72); on the model preferring the “social/ functional/ psychological parenthood” see Margalit, p. 576-582.)) Recently this Court considered the general and supplemental issue of a request to establish parenthood based only on a contractual foundation without any genetic element in AA 1118/14, Jane Doe v. The Ministry of Welfare and Social Services (the Petition was denied on July 13, 2014, in a decision that has yet to include reasons.)
41. In the Sperm Bank case, I addressed the two levels of the right to parenthood (para. 29):

“From all of this another distinction is revealed, which goes to the two levels of this right. The first level, which is in itself valuable, is the ability to realize reproduction ability and become a biological mother or father. The second level, which is that at the basis of the right not to be a parent, is one’s ability to choose how to realize their natural right that is the first level. The second level is in the periphery of the right to parenthood, it is not designed to protect the value itself of having children, but other values such as the right to privacy, autonomy and free will with whom, how and when if at all, to bring children into the world (including the ability to plan a family)” (emphases added – E.R.)

The distinction between the two aspects of the right is relevant here. The wise would easily see that on the legal level it is possible to distinguish between the infringement upon the First Petitioner’s right to parenthood and the infringement upon that right of the Second Petitioner’s. While the infringement upon the Second Petitioner is focused essentially on the second level of the right, because she is prevented from realizing the right in a manner she had requested , the infringement upon the First Petitioner is located in the first level of the right to parenthood, because she is barred from the very access for a surrogacy procedure and therefore, realizing her right to genetic parenthood. This categorization of the Second Petitioner’s issue does not negate the actual infringement because “as long as the margins are part of the right, the marginal character of the right's infringement is relevant only to the stage of constitutional review of the infringement, rather than the matter of whether there is in fact an infringement upon the right to human dignity” (The Constitution of the Family, p. 30; Barak, Proportionality, p. 44.)

42. For purposes of this discussion, I shall assume that the arrangement set in the Surrogacy Law which permits agreements between a man and woman and a surrogate and which requires severance of the relationship between the surrogate, the child and the intended parents upon birth, infringes the Petitioners’ right to parenthood. I will thus examine the constitutionality of this infringement.

The Second Step – Is the Infringement of the Constitutional Right Lawful (Limitations Clause)?

43. The Limitations Clause includes four conditions, as articulated by the language of section 8 of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty – the infringement must be done in a law or by law under in its explicit authorization; it must be fitting of the values of the State of Israel; it must be for a worthy purpose; and to an extent no greater than necessary. Two main obstacles stand in the Petitioners’ way to be included by the arrangements of the Surrogacy Law. One, the statute’s definition of the term “intended parents,” which is (section 1) “a man and a woman who are a couple, who enter into an agreement with a carrying mother in order to have a child.” Two, the absence of severance between the carrying mother and the intended parents after the birth of the child. We shall address both these pivotal obstacles.

The Constitutionality of the Definition of the Term “Intended Parents”

44. The narrow circle of eligibility resulting from the definition of “intended parents” in the Surrogacy Law was considered in the New Family case within the issue of the eligibility of a single woman to realize her right to parenthood through a surrogacy procedure. It was held that “the law did not intend to fix the problems of a women without children who has no male partner, it did not even aim at solving the problems of a man without a female partner or any other couple” (Id. p. 439, by Deputy President Cheshin.) In the New Family case, the narrow circle of eligibility was considered constitutional primarily because the law’s novelty at the time. Deputy President Cheshin insisted that in the future, the issue will warrant revisiting, once relevant information was accumulated as to the execution of the surrogacy procedure as well as to its consequences (Id., p. 447-48, 456.) See also Yelena Chechko, On Ripeness and Constitutionality: Following HCJ 3429/11, Alumni of The Orthodox Arab High School v. The Minister of Finance and HCJ 3803/11, Board of Trusties of Israeli Stock Market v. The State of Israel, Mishpatim 43, 419 (2013)).
45. The Professor Shlomo Mor Yossef Committee – the Public Committee of Examining Legislative Regulation of Reproduction and Birth in Israel (2012) – did indeed recommend to expand the circle of eligibility for surrogacy, so that single women, too, would be able to access the process of commercial surrogacy. The Committee further recommended establishing altruistic surrogacy for single men (for critiques regarding the Committee’s recommendations, see Avraham, chapter 3d.)

Following the publication of the Committee’s recommendations, in June 2012 a team was put together to examine methods of implementing the recommendations, as we have noted above. This year the Memorandum for the Agreements for Carrying Embryo Law (Approval of an Agreement and the Status of the Child) (Amendment – Definition of Intended Parents and Executing an Agreement outside of Israel), 5774-2014 was presented and received the approval of the Ministers Committee for Legislative Matters on March 2, 2014. The memorandum proposes to change the definition of “intended parents” to include in the circle of eligibility single women and single men. That is, it was proposed to expand the circle of eligibility for commercial surrogacy, according to the spirit of the decision in the New Family case. The memorandum does not directly resolve the issue of the Petitioners here under the model they request – only making it possible for the First Petitioner to contract a strange woman as a surrogate, which of course is not the Petitioners’ intention.

46. In any event, the existence of current legislative proceedings to expand the existing circle of eligibility in the Surrogacy Law naturally and sensibly calls for judicial restraint by this Court, so it won't trail behind the Legislature (para. 17 of Justice Hayut’s judgment; HCJ 9682/10, Milu’off Agricultural Cooperative Association Ltd. v. The Minister of Agriculture – Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (2011)). Of course, were there ultimately not to be legislative processes constitutional judicial intervention must not be ruled out of the realm of possibility. I do agree with my colleague Justice Arbel’s words in her judgment that “legislative arrangements must be interpreted to fit with the principle of equality which demands the equal treatment of same sex couples” (para. 10.) However, the appropriate port of call for such changes is first and foremost the Legislature, and the existence of advanced legislative processes warrants such judicial restraint.
47. To conclude so far, the definition of the term “intended parents” in the Surrogacy Law prevents the First Petitioner’s access to surrogacy. The State claims (para. 51) that this issue is merely theoretical in her regard in light of her desire to have the assistance of her partner in order to realize the surrogacy procedure. However, there should be a distinction between barring access to a procedure, on the first level of the First Petitioner’s right to parenthood, and the matter of how the surrogacy procedure will be executed on the second level of the right. We now move to the second bar, which is concerned with how the right to parenthood is exercised.

The Requirement for the Severance of the Relationship between the Carrying Mother and the Intended Parents – Constitutional?

48. The First Petitioner’s desire to execute the surrogacy procedure through her partner, appears to be, as mentioned above, concerned with the second level of the right to parenthood: the way in which the right it exercised. The First Petitioner wishes to exercise her right to genetic parenthood in a particular way, that is possible on its face in the medical sense – subject to the reservations of the First Petitioner’s treating physician that “there is no conclusive evidence as to whether the problem is the eggs or the pregnancy taking root (uterus-based)” (exhibit P/2 of the Amended Petition dated April 14, 2013), but it is still uncharted land in the legal sense.
49. Altruistic surrogacy, and at least surrogacy based on a relationship, is not recognized in the current legislative arrangement. Still, in the mentioned law’s memorandum it is possible to find slight hinting at establishing such surrogacy. Thus, it was suggested to change the definition of “relative” in section 1(3) of the Surrogacy Law so that cousins would not be considered relatives and could serve as carrying mothers. In section 2(3)(b) of the Surrogacy Law it was proposed to add an exception to the basic prohibition on the intended parents and the carrying mother being relatives as following: “despite the above, a sister cold use as a carrying mother as long as the sperm fertilizing the eggs implanted in her body is not of her brother.” The desire to increase the pool of candidates for carrying mothers brought the drafters of the memorandum to consider relatives of the intended parents under the assumption that the existence of a relationship would serve as a catalyst for entering into the surrogacy procedure.

In order to examine the proportionality of the demand to severe the relationship between the surrogate and the intended parents we shall consider the three accepted sub tests: first, the fit test – which requires a connection between the worthy purpose and the means selected to accomplishing it. Second, the least restrictive means test – which requires that the means chosen infringes on one’s right as little as possible. The third test concerns the existence of a proper connection between the means and the purpose, and weighs the benefits resulting from the infringing statute against the extent of harm done to the right (HCJ 4769/95, Menachem v. Minister of Transport, IsrSC 57(1) 235, 279-86 (2002); Aharon Barak, Interpretation in Law – Constitutional Interpretation, 545-47 (1994); Barak, Proportionality, p. 373-454.)

50. Because there is on its fact a rational link between the surrogacy model built around the severance and the achievement of the purpose of the Surrogacy Law, as it currently is, we will move on to the second sub test for proportionality and ask whether there is an alternative which infringes on the right to parenthood less but may still achieve the law’s purpose. The Petitioners justifiably point to a variety of problems and criticisms raised in regard to commercial surrogacy – the exploitation of the surrogate’s financial circumstances, the hardship of severing the relationship with the child, regret for entering into the procedure, and the involvement of a third party in reproductive procedures (Lipkin and Smama, p. 480-85.) They argue that these are negated by an altruistic procedure which they seek. However, the altruistic model is not free of flaws, either. The main concern arising in an altruistic model is the social and familial pressure on the woman, which may lead her to enter into an intrusive and difficult procedure that does not reflect her true wishes (Rakhi Ruparelia, Giving Away the Gift of Life: Surrogacy and the Canadian Assisted Human Reproduction Act 23 Can. J. Fam. L 11, 14; 29; 35-36 (2007); Janice J. Raymond, Women as Wombs: Reproductive Technologies and the Battle over Women’s Freedom, 53-54 (1993)). In the United States, for example, there is a tendency to restrain altruistic agreements between relatives because of the concern for difficulties of disconnection from the child (Lipkin and Smama, p. 450.) An additional problem is the lack of sufficient psychological and scientific knowledge about the altruistic process and its consequences (Id., p. 490.)
51. Moreover, altruistic surrogacy may also raise, to greater force, the question of the surrogate’s legal status vis-à-vis the child. Ordinarily, in a procedure of surrogacy, once a parenting order is granted the carrying mother loses any legal status toward the child. In the procedure requested by the Petitioners, it is likely that the Second Petitioner who would have carried the child would seek legal recognition as the child’s mother (see also HCJ 566/11, Doron Mamat-Magad v. The Ministry of Interior (January 28, 2014) (hereinafter: the Mamat-Magad case.) Such a request poses significant difficulty to the institution of surrogacy in its current formulation which only recognizes the intended mother as the legal mother (Zafran, p. 388-395.) Legal recognition within the Surrogacy Law of the carrying mother may potentially cause harm to the group of “intended parents” who currently utilize the Surrogacy Law.
52. In light of all the above, permitting a model of “relationship” within the existing statutory arrangement cannot create an alternative that less infringes upon the constitutional right, which can still accomplish the purposes of the law. Though the establishment of altruistic surrogacy has great potential, the task of setting it up is clearly within the purview of the Legislature in light of the difficulties it presents in the absence of proper and balanced regulation. Establishing a model of altruistic surrogacy requires to create legislative mechanisms that would ensure the free will of the surrogate as well as methods for detection and follow up. Here is a challenge for the Legislature.
53. The Surrogacy Law therefore restricts the First Petitioner’s right to altruistic surrogacy, as this model has yet to be enacted in a statute. However, the infringement is limited to achieving the purpose of surrogacy through the altruistic model in Israel. The State did not block the First Petitioner’s way from executing the surrogacy procedure along the route she desires abroad. We refereed to the Ministry of Health’s protocol from July 21, 2013 titled “Taking Semen, Eggs or Fertilized Eggs out from Israel,” which enables the First Petitioner to take  fertilized eggs extracted from her body out of Israel, in order for them to be “implanted in the body of the woman from whom the eggs were extracted or in the body of a surrogate woman for the purposes of carrying a pregnancy for the woman from whom the eggs were extracted, or for the purposes of realizing parenthood in alternative means for the women from whom the eggs were extracted.” (Emphasis added – E.R.)

Through the protocol the State avoids defining the requested procedure as a surrogacy procedure, in light of the law’s absence of recognition of the altruistic model, but at the same time removes the obstacle standing in the Petitioners’ way to execute the procedure in other countries in the manner they wish to execute it. In my view, the option given to the First Petitioner to take her genetic material out of Israel meets the requirement of the third sub test (narrow proportionality) which concerns the relation between the infringement upon the constitutional right and the benefit achieved. Since altruistic surrogacy does not exist in Israel, it seems we have a proportional solution that balances the petitioners’ desire to execute the procedure in a specific manner they request and the need to refrain establishing judicial arrangements as a “patch work.” In contrast, allowing the Petitioners to realize their wishes in the specific manner they seek – that is, through altruistic surrogacy in Israel – would result in parts of the Surrogacy law becoming incoherent with each other (for the problems of “patch work” legislation, see HCJ 7691/95, Sagi v. The Government of Israel, IsrSC 52(5) 577, 587-88 (1998); LCA 418/03, Ossem Food Industries Ltd. v. Smaja, IsrSC 59(3) 541, 552-54 (2004); CrimA 4783/09, Shulstein v. The Antitrust Authority, para. 1 (2010)).

Finally, referring the First Petitioner under today’s state of the law to exercise her right out of Israel, with all the inconvenience involved, does not automatically cause unconstitutional infringement upon her right (HCJ 466/07, Galon v. The Attorney General, para. 8 of (then) Justice Naor's judgment (2012) (hereinafter: the Galon case.) Executing the procedure, in the specific manner requested, out of Israel constitutes a proportionate solution for the First Petitioner, as long as there is no existing legislative regulation of altruistic surrogacy. Executing the procedure allows the State to assist the Petitioners without causing disharmony to the existing statute. Indeed, there is discomfort with the State referring its citizens to realize their dreams and rights in other countries (the Mamat Magad case, paras. 5-10 of Justice Joubran’s judgment,) yet in the absence of a legislative arrangement that allows surrogacy along the route the Petitioners request, the solution suggested by the State through the protocol is proportionate, because “at times even the exercise of a constitutional right yields to the public interest” (see Galon, para. 11 of (then) Justice Naor's judgment) and in our case – to harmony in the system of parenthood arrangements and the balances between them. Interpretation such as the Petitioners requested stands, as my colleague Justice Hayut noted as well (para. 18), in contrast to the core of the existing arrangement, which focuses on severance between the surrogate and the intended parents.

54. Under the circumstances – as we have not accepted the Petition – it is unnecessary to delve into the issue of the legal recognition of the carrying mother (the Second Petitioner.) However, to the extent that the Petitioners chose or will choose to execute the procedure abroad, it seems the solution proposed by the District Court in T.Z. (paras. 31 and 34) – issuing a judicial parenting order (after conducting a review to support the petition for a parenting order) – and which comes out also of the Mamat Magad case (para. 43 of Deputy President Naor’s judgment, para. 11 of my judgment) could seemingly work in favor of the Petitioners here, because the State expressed no general objection to a family unit of “co mothers” which the Petitioners wish to contract, but only to the legal route in which they seek to construct it (on the legal recognition of two mothers in the United States, see Nancy D. Polikoff, A Mother Should Not Have to Adopt Her Own Child: Parentage Laws for Children of Lesbian Couples in the Twenty-First Century, 5 Stan. J.C.R. & C.L 201 (2009)).
55. As to the future regulation of altruistic surrogacy within the general Surrogacy Law which currently only regulates commercial surrogacy, the Legislature must explore the possibility of establishing a route for altruistic surrogacy, which would operate in parallel to the commercial route where the law’s different parts would not conflict with one another, but complement each other. See – and this is only brought as an example – the proposal by the “Woman to Woman” Center in regard to introducing elements of a “relationship” into contractual commercial surrogacy as well, and this based on psychological research demonstrating that the human relationships formed are the primary benefit that the surrogate enjoys in the process (Nufar Lipkin and Eti Smama, Surrogacy in Israel – 2010 Snapshot and Proposal for Legislative Amendments – Report by ‘Woman to Woman-Feminist Center, Haifa’ 65, 80-82 (2010), Elly Teman, Birthing a Mother: The Surrogate Body and the Pregnant Self (2010)).

Conclusion and Final Words

56. At the end of the day, we did not see it fit to intervene in the State’s latest proposal, which meets the Petitioners significantly closer, though not exactly at their desired point. In our view, under the current state of the law it is impossible to fully assist the Petitioners, and doing so is up to the Legislature. As we have demonstrated, the dissenting opinion’s suggestions – as appealing as they may be – are not acceptable to us on the legal level. Hence our position not to accept the petition. There is no order as to costs.

                                                                                                Justice

President A. Grunis:

I agree with the judgment of my colleague, Justice E. Rubinstein.

                                                                                                President

Deputy President M. Naor:

1. I am among the majority Justices who have found the Petition must be denied.
2. The right to parenthood received recognition as a fundamental right, which expresses the natural desires of women and men for continuance in future generations (HCJ 566/11, Mamat-Magad v. The Ministry of Interior, para. 41 of my judgment (January 28, 2014); HCJ 4077/12, Jane Doe v. The Ministry of Health, paras. 25-29 of my colleague Justice E. Rubinstein’s judgment (February 5, 2013) (hereinafter: the Jane Doe case)); dismissing a motion for further hearing – HCJFH 1403/13, Jane Doe v. The Ministry of Health (June 6, 2013.)) The right to parenthood, as other rights in our law, has different aspects. At the core of the right to parenthood is the right of each man or woman to bring children into the world through natural reproduction, free of state intervention. It is also accepted that at the heart of the right is “the practical ability to enter the ‘group of parents’ and bring a child into the world (Id., para. 33). Another question, a more complex one, is what is the level of protection that must be given to one’s demand that the State assist him in creating genetic, physiological or legal parenthood. This, in light of the medical, technological advances that make creating parenthood by artificial means possible. These things found expression in the jurisprudence of this Court. See, for example: HCJ 4293/01, New Family v. The Minister of Labor and Welfare (March, 24, 2009), which addressed, among others, the question whether there is a constitutional right to adopt. Justice A. Procaccia discussed there the complexity inherent in the question whether one has a right to require the State to assist in the process of creating parenthood:

“The question from a different angle is whether the constitutional right to family life and parenthood, which is granted to any person, gives rise also to the right to require the state to take action in order to make it possible where one is not able, or does not wish, to exercise it naturally – for instance through adoption, through surrogacy or through in vitro fertilization. Does the state’s failure to act amount to an ‘infringement’ whose constitutionality is examined according to the Limitations Clause? Such questions are complex and multi-faceted. They go to the link between the constitutional right and the means one has to exercise that right. They raise issues with broad normative, moral, social and other ramifications. The approaches to resolving them are subject to the influences of time, place and circumstances…

… The question to what extent the state must assist the individual and grant the means necessary to assist reproductive processes through artificial reproductive techniques is difficult and complex. The greater the need for intervention of external factors in the reproduction processes, the farther we travel from the hard core of the right to parenthood as based on the individual’s autonomy and his independent right to make decisions that determine his fate without external intervention. The scope of the duty of the state to assist the individual through active steps to realize his natural parenthood through artificial means is difficult and has many aspects.” (Paras. 22-23.)

In that same matter, President D. Beinisch commented that the right to parenthood should not be interpreted as merely a negative right, but added that were there a constitutional right to parenthood through adoption, it would have been necessary to distinguish between the scope and the force of the constitutional protection given to the relevant right in different contexts (para. 3; see also the position of Deputy President E. Rivlin there, who believed that there is a liberty to adopt, and that restricting this liberty must be done in consideration of competing interests. See also, Aharon Barak, Human Dignity: the Constitutional Right and its Daughters, vol. 2, 667 (2014)). As my colleagues pointed out, alongside the right to parenthood, the best interest of third parties who are at times involved in the process of artificial reproduction as well as medical, social, and other ethical considerations must all come into account. These considerations may lead to the limitation of the means to realize the right to parenthood, as well as declining to recognize certain types of parenthood (see and compare: our decision without reasons in LFA 1118/14, Jane Doe v. The Ministry of Welfare and Social Services (July 13, 2014.)) The mere fact that there are various ways to become a parent does not mean that the State must allow their execution in any way that science and technology allow. A similar approach was expressed in the matter of Jane Doe, where Justice D. Barak-Erez discussed the fact that the protection of the right to parenthood must be distinguished from the protection for the goal to exercise the right to parenthood “in a particular way” (para. 11), and that “these situations continue to raise the question whether when a certain course of action is available, as a scientific and technological matter, would this mean that there is also a right to make use of it, and that the way the right is exercises cannot be restricted.” (Para. 32.)

3. In the case before us, the Petitioners wish to bring a common child into the world, in a manner where the child will be born of the Second Petitioner’s uterus and will carry the genetic code of the First Petitioner. According to the Petitioners, the Respondents have not indicated there was a moral flaw, or any other consideration that justifies preventing them from exercising their right to parenthood in this way. Although their plight is touching, my opinion was that the Petition must be dismissed.
4. My colleagues have demonstrated at length, and I shall not repeat, that under the system of statutes existing currently, what the Petitioners wish to do is impermissible and may even lead to a criminal sanction, including for the treating physician.
5. My colleague Justice Hayut in her humane and sensitive judgment wishes to find remedy for the Petitioners and their desires through the doctrine of “reading in.” In her view, this way allows authorizing the exceptions committee already exists under the Eggs Donation Law, 5770-2010 (hereinafter: the Eggs Donation Law) to approve eggs donation when the committee is satisfied that under the circumstances there are exceptional and special reasons that justify doing so. This language appeared in the Bill, but was removed as a result of Rabbi Halperin’s suggestion to leave this to the court because “the court permits things that the law prohibits.” My colleague points out that these things by Rabbi Halperin have no foundation. Indeed, as opposed to Rabbi Halperin’s suggestion, the courts do not do as they see fit with statutes and law, and they do not permit what the statute has prohibited. The way of courts is the way of interpretation, and when necessary – and when the court sees it to be justified – it takes the exceptional step of judicial intervention. Still, in my opinion, even were we to expand the powers of the exceptions committee, as my colleague suggests, there was no case before us that was necessarily suitable to apply the exception to the principles established in the Eggs Donation Law. On this point, I join the words of my colleague Justice Rubinstein in paras. 16-23 of his judgment. The arrangements in terms of eggs donation, which were described in detail, emphasize the physiological connection between the mother and the fetus. In this way, section 42(a) of the Eggs Donation Law, mandates that a child born of an egg donation would be the child of the recipient for all intents and purposes. Without devaluing the importance of the genetic connection, I believe this is an infringement upon a particular way to realize the right to parenthood, and thus its force is diminished in my eyes. Accepting the Petition may shift the weight to the genetic relationship between the child and the recipient, and thus impact the definitions of parenthood resulting from an eggs donation, as well. There is no moral flaw to the Petitioners request, but accepting it may implicate other issues and destabilize the balances established in the legislation of reproduction and birth. It should also be noted that the restrictions set in the Eggs Donation Law are not concerned with the sexual preference of the recipient or the donor but with resolving the recipient woman’s reproductive difficulties. As a result there is no prohibition against the Second Petitioner donating eggs to the First Petitioner. Additionally, that the legislation regulating egg donation is actually recent and that during the hearing before the extended panel held on April 28, 2013 the Respondents expressed their willingness to examine the need to amend it must also be factored in.

5.               The circumstances described above, along with the possibility open to the Petitioners to realize their wished outside of Israel leads to a conclusion that there is no justification, at this time, to intervene in primary legislation. In this case, taking the extraordinary step of reading into the law amounts, almost, to instructing the exceptions committee to stray from the law in the Petitioners’ case, under circumstances that have no justification for doing so. Another difficulty in taking this step is that expanding the powers of the exceptions committee, as proposed by me colleague, may have wide consequences outside of the individual case of the Petitioners and couples like them. This is, in my view, a substantive and significant change to the law, and I doubt whether it is proper to make in the way of “reading in.”

6.               Moreover, even were to intervene in the Embryo Carrying Agreements Law (Approval of the Agreement and the Status of the Child), 5756- 1996 (hereinafter: the Surrogacy Law,) and find that the term “intended parents” in this law includes not only couples who are a man and a woman but also a woman and a woman (and I am inclined to find as such; see also Memorandum regarding the Agreements to Carry Embryo Law (Approval of an Agreement and the Status of the Child) (Amendment – definition of Intended Parents and Executing an Agreement out of Israel), 5774-2014), this would not benefit the Petitioners. The Surrogacy Law reflects a model where the relationship between the surrogate and the child is severed upon birth, whereas the Petitioners wish to realize a different type of parenthood, where the woman carrying the pregnancy, along with the genetic mother, will together serve as mothers to the child. The Surrogacy Law is not the appropriate avenue for the Petitioners’ matter.

7.               My colleague, Justice Arbel emphasized in her sensitive opinion the First Petitioner’s desire for a child of her own. As to the legal route taken by Justice Arbel, I join the words of Justice Rubinstein in paragraphs 24-26 of his opinion.

8.               In conclusion: with all the empathy to the Petitioners’ desire to bring a child into the world in the particular way they suggest, including performing the entire procedure in Israel, I find it impossible to accept their petition. They are able, however, to take the route to which the Ministry of Health was willing to agree.

                                                                                                Deputy President

Justice S. Joubran:

1. The issue before us is not easy to decide. On one hand it touches the heart of human existence – the desire to be a parent; on the other hand it touches the heart of society’s existence – regulating its conduct through the law. The Amended Petition aims to challenge different provisions in two statutes, which according to the Petitioners, limit their ability to realize their will to be genetic and biological co parents by using artificial reproductive technologies. The first statute is the Embryo Carrying Agreements Law (Approval of the Agreement and the Status of the Child), 5756-1996 (hereinafter: the Surrogacy Law). The other statute is the Eggs Donation Law, 5770-2010 (hereinafter: the Eggs Donation Law). The dispute is, in short, whether it is possible under the circumstances of the case to allow the Petitioners to have their wish and this despite the limitations of the law.
2. I join the judgment of my colleague Justice Rubinstein, according to which we cannot permit the Petitioners’ request. Like my colleague, I too believe that there is currently no lawful avenue to fulfill their hearts’ desires, and I shall add but several short comments.
3. First as to the Surrogacy Law. I accept the position that the case before us does not fall under this law. The Second Petitioner – the “surrogate” mother – wishes to carry the embryo in her uterus and give birth to it and is intended additionally to be the co parent of the child. In order for the law to apply to the Petitioner, a central element of the Surrogacy Law must exist. This is the element of post birth severance. The current outline of the Surrogacy Law requires as a general rule, aside from exceptional cases that are detailed in section 13 of the law, severance between the carrying mother and the child and the intended parents after birth. It seems that the existing Surrogacy Law does not regulate situations where the mother who carries a fetus in her uterus and gives birth to it would also be the child’s mother, and thus the law does not exist in the case before us. This is true at least under the Israeli Surrogacy Law. It appears there are possible other outlines for surrogacy different than that in the law in its current version. The definition of surrogacy depends on the law and may take many different forms (see primarily paras. 32-33 of my colleague Justice Rubinstein’s judgment.) So, for example, there is altruistic surrogacy and there is contractual commercial surrogacy. However, as said, the current state of the law in our country indeed does not permit under any interpretive reading what the Petitioners ask.
4. Now for the Eggs Donation Law. In the case before us, the recipient who receives the eggs is, as far as we know, a healthy woman. The difficulty in applying the law to her is that the Eggs Donation Law requires that the recipient have a medical condition that requires an eggs donation from another woman (section 11 of the Eggs Donation Law,) and thus this basic condition is not met in the case at hand.
5. Although section 18 of the Eggs Donation Law authorizes an exceptions committee to approve an eggs donation procedure in certain exceptional case, but these are detailed in an exhaustive list in section 20(a) of the law and the case before us does not fall within the list. My colleague Justice Hayut proposed to use the reading in doctrine in order to read into the Eggs Donation Law a general catch all section, in addition to the list of exceptional cases detailed in the law, which authorizes the exceptions committee to approve an eggs donation “if it is satisfied that under the circumstances there are special and exceptional reasons which justify doing so” and thus permit what is requested by the Petitioners (paras. 35-38 of her judgment.) My position is identical to that of my colleague Justice Rubinstein, that this reading is impossible. The language of the Eggs Donation Bill did include such a catch all section that granted the exceptions committee the power to authorize an eggs donation “if [the committee] was satisfied that under the circumstances there are exceptional and special reasons which justify doing so” (section 21(e) of the Eggs Donation Bill, 5767-2007 Government Bills 289, 292,) and the explanatory notes clarify that the exceptional reasons are those which “were impossible to have anticipated, and this without requiring an amendment to the law” (para. 11 of my colleague Justice Rubinstein’s judgment.) However, the Petitioners’ request was anticipated and known to the professional bodies as well as the sub- committee of the Committee for Labor, Welfare and Health. This particularly in light of FA (Dist. Tel Aviv) 60320/07 T.Z. v. The Attorney General, State Attorney – District of Tel Aviv (March 4, 2012) (hereinafter: the T.Z. case) where a similar matter of a female couple interested in biological genetic co-parenting, but where the recipient woman had a medical need for the eggs donation, was decided. And yet, at the end of the day the Legislature decided not to include in the Eggs Donation Law a general catch all section or a specific exception that permitted a case such as the one before us. Under these circumstances, I doubt whether it is possible for us to read a reading that is inconsistent with the legislative intent. Therefore, it seems this law, too, does not apply to the circumstances of the case before us.
6. Beyond the necessary scope, the question whether the Eggs Donation Law is at all relevant to the case before us is raised. Indeed, the Eggs Donation Law was designed to assist women who are unable to realize their parenthood in means other than an eggs donation, but in my view – and in this regard my opinion converges with the opinion of my collogue Justice Arbel – this law is not relevant to our matter, both in light of its said purpose and the clarity of its sections which explicitly exclude cases where the woman is able to realize her parenthood even without the eggs donation, and in light of the fact that in effect this is not a “donation” in our case, as my colleague Justice Arbel analyzed in a deep and persuasive manner. I accept the conclusion that the meaning of “donation” is giving to another without receiving any compensation and in our case the “donor” receives the right to be a co mother to the child. In my opinion, this is the reasonable interpretation of this term. Therefore, and in light of my colleague Justice Arbel’s additional reasons, I believe that the Eggs Donation Law is irrelevant to our matter.
7. My colleague Justice Arbel thus turned to the People’s Health Regulations (In Vitro Fertilization), 5747-1987 (hereinafter: The IVF Regulations) in order to locate a solution to the problem and her position is that these Regulations are relevant to the case at hand, as they were in the case of T.Z.. However, my position is as the position of my colleague Justice Rubinstein. These two cases are distinguishable in the fundamental element of the egg recipient’s medical need. In the case before us there is no such need because the woman seeking to receive the eggs is a healthy woman and thus the T.Z. case, which considered a recipient with a medical need, cannot be analogized. It seems that the guidelines by the Attorney General from November 30, 2009 regarding eggs donation between female partners are irrelevant as well because these guidelines also relied on a case where the receiving partner demonstrated a medical need for a donation from her partner. And in any event, the Eggs Donation Law was enacted after this and regulated the issue in primary legislation.
8. As to the application of the IVF Regulations to the case at hand, I believe that the procedure requested by the Petitioners lacks any anchor in these Regulations. The IVF Regulations establish, among others, the exclusivity of the purposes for egg extraction as in vitro fertilization of the egg and its consequent implantation (regulation 3,) but they do not address a procedure such as the one sought in this Petition in any way. The reasonable interpretation of these Regulations leads to the conclusion that there were designed to regulate in vitro fertilization of a woman’s egg in order to implant it in her own body rather than the body of another, whether the latter woman is her partner or a stranger. And in any event, as my colleague Justice Arbel emphasizes in section 19 of her opinion, the procedure of eggs donation can currently be done only according to the arrangements of the Eggs Donation Law. Section 4 of the Eggs Donation Law explicitly limits the activity of eggs extraction and implantation to follow only the provisions of this law, unless in cases of surrogacy.
9. We learn that the procedure where a woman wishes to give her egg to her (healthy) partner in order for it to be implanted in the partner who would give birth to a mutual genetic, biological child is not regulated in Israeli legislation. But had the Eggs Donation Law not include a provision mandates the treatment of eggs to conform solely to this law (section 4 of the Eggs Donation Law,) it seems the Petitioners’ request would have been permissible. However, the explicit prohibition to follow a different path than that set out in the Eggs Donation Law limits the steps of the Petitioners and does not afford them what they request (see and compare HCJ 2458/01, New Family v. The Committee for Approving Agreements for Carrying Embryo, IsrSC 57(1) 419, 445 (2002), in a parallel context of exclusivity of arrangements in the Surrogacy Law.) Therefore, in the case before us I believe that despite our willingness to do so, we cannot assist the Petitioners.
10. In this context, a central matter that came up in my colleagues positions was the legislative intent while enacting the Eggs Donation Law, 5770-2010 (hereinafter: the Eggs Donation Law) and the assumption about courts’ intervention in legislation (see the discussion in this regard in my colleague Justice Hayut’s judgment in paras. 21-22, 38 and in my colleague Justice Rubinstein’s judgment in paras. 11-14.) So, for instance, Rabbi Dr. Halperin said that “the court permits things that are prohibited… when there is a real need it finds the way to do so even in violation of express statute” and later “this does not need to be written. The court does this anyway even without a catch all section.” I have but to join the words of my colleagues Justice Hayut and Justice Rubinstein on this issue. The assumption that the court would intervene in legislation even if it were against the law is fundamentally mistaken and undermines the public’s trust in the court system. As emphasized by my colleague Justice Rubinstein, the court sees it fit to intervene in legislation only in extreme cases and it does so with great care. These things are of even more force where the Legislature clarified his position and where the question of the statute’s interpretation does not come up, as in the case before us.
11. Similarly to the position of my colleague Justice Rubinstein, I, too, believe that the removal of the requirement for the recipient’s medical need as set in section 11 of the Eggs Donation Law must be considered in order to extend the circle of men and women eligible for an eggs donation. Similarly certain aspects or the Surrogacy Law should also be revisited and current gaps in the statutory regime – such as the existence of a procedure of partner assisted reproduction, or reciprocal IVF, which permits eggs donation for healthy women as well, of course with inherent and imminent mechanisms of control and supervision – should be regulated in legislation.
12. The right to parenthood – as discussed at length in paragraphs 2-3 of my colleague Deputy President M. Naor’s judgment – is an important and fundamental right in our country, a basic constitutional right that stands to each man and woman by virtue of their humanity. However, I agree with the position that the right to parenthood is not the right to parenthood exercised in a particular way (see HCJ 4077/12, Jane Doe v. The Ministry of Health, para. 11 of Justice Barak-Erez’s judgment (February 5, 2013.)) In the case before us, the Petitioners have several options to become parents, even if not all of them make the requested genetic biological co-parenting model possible. Specifically, they have the option, to which the State agreed, to perform the requested procedure abroad and receive recognition of the genetic biological co-parenting in Israel. We must hope that this option will be only temporary for such cases until the Legislature permits performing the procedure in our own country.

                                                                                                Justice

Justice H. Melcer:

1. At the time it was decided – by a majority of four Justices against three – to deny this petition. I was among the minority. The decision was made public with no reasoning so that the Petitioners may calculate their steps according to the outcome and explore whether they are willing to accept the partial solution proposed to them by the Respondents. We took this route in light of the constraints of “the biological clock” which weighed heavy on the Petitioner, and thus we allowed the Petitioners to make an informed decision in their matter as early as possible.

It is time now for giving reasons, and these took shape so that first the opinions of my colleagues in the minority, Justice E. Hayut and Justice (Ret.) E. Arbel were written and the opinions of the majority Justices, headed by the opinion of my colleague Justice E. Rubinstein, then followed. As a result before me is all the comprehensive and studious material and I have but to clarify why I was of the view that the Petition must not be rejected and how it should be upheld. I shall turn to this immediately, but I will open by briefly reviewing the Petition and focusing on the issues in agreement and those in dispute. 

2. The Petitioners are partners. They wish to bring a child into the world in the following way: an egg taken from the body of the First Petitioner would be fertilized and then implanted in the body of the Second Petitioner. Seemingly, under the statutory situation in our country, the said method is not permitted to be executed in Israel, in light of the different provisions in the Agreements for Carrying Embryo Law (Approval of an Agreement and the Status of the Child), 5756-1996 (hereinafter: the Surrogacy Law) and in the Eggs Donation Law,5770-2010 (hereinafter: The Eggs Law.) In order for this to be permitted, the Petitioners have therefore raised different arguments on the interpretive and constitutional levels to challenge the restricting provisions. An order nisi was granted in the Petition and it was considered by an extended panel.
3. My colleague, Justice E. Hayut, described well (and thus I will not repeat): The various legal obstacles in the statutory network that the Petitioners face in realizing their desire to parenthood and the constitutional rights on which they rely in their arguments. Finally, my colleague analyzed the current restrictions in the mentioned statutes against the “Limitations Clause”. In a sharp and concise opinion she reached the conclusion that the arrangement set in the Eggs Donation Law, which restricts extraction, fertilization and implantation of the fertilized eggs and prohibits, under criminal prohibition, the performance of these procedures in the circumstances where the Petitioners find themselves, violates the Petitioners’ constitutional rights to autonomy, to family life and to parenthood. Therefore she found that the limitations in the Eggs Law in this sense do not pass the requirements of the Limitations Clause in section 8 of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty.

I join all these finding, as it was not said that there is an interpretive avenue that would grant the Petitioners’ wishes without judicial intervention in existing legislation (and I believe that there is such a path.) I additionally share my colleague’s conclusion and the views of the remaining members of the panel that judicial intervention in the Surrogacy Law is not the proper path to examine the arguments of the Petitioners and to find remedy to their plight.

4. Therefore it appears that the split in opinions between the majority and the minority is on the question whether the restrictions in the Eggs Law which bar the Petitioners from realizing their desires meet the requirements of the Limitations Clause. Together with this difference in opinions, within the minority justices, there is an agreement regarding the outcome (that the Petition should have been accepted), but we do not agree on the method of resolution and as to the legal basis for it.

It is fitting here to note further that even the Respondents, who were also aware of the Petitioners’ distress, proposed during the hearings in the Petition a certain partial solution for the Petitioners – an arrangement that the majority saw fit to accept as satisfactory under the circumstances, and not go beyond.

In the following paragraphs I will attempt to concisely demonstrate why the majority’s position is unsatisfactory, and why the minority position, with its differing aspects, is preferable to me.

5.  In analyzing the legal problem brought to us two insights should, at least, guide us, in my view:
   
   1. Technology generally precedes the law. In these cases where the Legislature and the courts are called upon to pour the essence of existing, good, and established fundamental principles into new legal vessels (as if were they wine which gets better with age, which only needs a more modern container. Compare: Stephen Breyer, Active Liberty 64 (2009)). And see my opinion in CA 9183/09, The Football Association Premier League Limited v. John Doe, (May 13, 2012.)
   2. Interpretation is the preferable method to resolve issues which overlap with constitutional questions and this before we reach the last resort of striking down legislation. See: judgments by President A. Barak and then Justices M. Cheshin and D. Beinisch in HCJ 9098/01, Genis v. The Ministry of Construction and Housing, IsrSC 59(4), 241 (2004); HCJ 3809/08, The Association of Civil Rights in Israel v. The Israel Police (May 28, 2012); my judgment in LCA 7204/06, Israela Erlich v. Yehoshua Bertel at para. 40 (August 22, 2012.) Review also comparative law – the judgment of the United States Supreme Court, by Justice Roberts (in majority) in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566, 2593-94 (2012)).

Considering these insights and the distress of the Petitioners’ and others like them, the Respondents notified us in an updated notice that on July 21, 2013 the Ministry of Health published a protocol for the “taking  Sperm, Eggs or Fertilized Eggs out of Israel.” Following the protocol a decision was also made by the exceptions committee, which operates under the Eggs Law. The committee approved the taking of eggs out of Israel in order for them to be implanted abroad under certain circumstances. Such approval is permissible under section 22(d) of the Eggs Law. The protocol and the decision by the exceptions committee both mean that it is now permitted to perform the procedure of extracting eggs from the First Petitioner in Israel and later their fertilization, with their implantation in the Second Petitioners’ bodies to be done out of Israel.

The majority Justices are willing to consider this, under the circumstances, a satisfactory solution to this problem. I, with all due respect, think differently for two reasons:

1. Section 22(d) of the Eggs Law stipulates as follows:

“The exceptions committee may approve the taking out of eggs extracted in Israel from a patient’s body for the purposes of their implantation out of Israel, if it satisfied that the eggs were intended to be implanted in her body, and that there is justification to approve the eggs’ implantation out of Israel.” (My emphasis – H.M.)

Therefore, it seems, the requirement that the exceptions committee be satisfied that the eggs be intended to be implanted in the patient’s body, in its plain language, is not met here, and thus referring the matter abroad works primarily to “distance and marginalize”. What is more – moving the solution abroad is more burdensome.

2. Constitutionally, it is neither appropriate nor proportionate to send an Israeli citizen abroad to exercise her constitutional rights. In this context, the Petitioner’s cry (who is also an officer in the IDF) that called upon us from the bottom of her heart not to accept the partial solution proposed to the Petitioners by the Respondents, still rings in my ears, particularly because in my view she is not only correct on an emotional level, but also on a legal level.

What is, then, the right solution? I shall elaborate on this directly below.

6. It appears to me that granting the Petitioners’ wishes could have come to its resolution within the authority of the exceptions committee under section 22(a)(2) of the Eggs Law, which reads as follows:

“The Exceptions Committee may approve the extraction of eggs for implantation, or implantation of eggs when the donor designates in advance the eggs extracted from her body to a particular recipient, when it is satisfied that the following conditions are met, as appropriate to each case:

…(2) In the case of the donor who designates in advance the eggs extracted from her body to a particular recipient who is not her family member – there are religious or social reasons which justify such an egg donation.”

This sub section has none of the limitations of the type included is section 22(d) of the above Eggs Law. Moreover, the interpretation taken by the majority is much less sound. Furthermore, as demonstrated by my colleague Justice E. Rubinstein in paragraph 12 of his opinion – during the discussions of the Knesset’s sub-committee of Labor, Welfare and Health, which considered the Eggs law’s bill before it was prepared for its second and third reading the sub committee’s chair, MK Professor Ariyeh Eldad commented that this section was a good opening for same sex female couples.

In this way it would have been possible therefore to grant the requested by the Petitioners and accept, in this sense, their petition (there still would have been the issue of the Child’s status under section 42 of the Eggs Law, however this issue could be resolved by finding statutory solutions (see and compare with the situation in Britain – section 42-46 of the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act 2008,) or judicial ones (see the majority opinion in HCJ 566/11, Doron Mamat-Magad v. The Ministry of Interior (January 28, 2014.) Additionally, this issue was not included by the Petitioners in their Petition.)

However, since my colleagues do not accept, to my regret, for some reasons that were not expressed, the interpretive approach based on section 22(a)(2) of the Eggs Law in order to resolve the issue – I am also willing to walk down one of the paths proposed by my colleagues to the minority and in this sense will limit myself only to several short comments.

7. As to the proposal raised by my colleague Justice E. Hayut (as to the addition of a catch all section for an exception to the Eggs Law) – this solution, in principle, is acceptable to me as I support the approach that legislation should include authorities that enable solutions in “a special particular case,” or to instruct doing so by way of judicial interpretation. See HCJ 2390/10, Ala Halihal v. The Minister of Interior (May 23, 2010) para. 10 of my judgment; APA 9890/09, Nava v. The Ministry of Interior (July 11, 2013), para. 16(d) of my judgment; LAA 7272/10, Jane Doe v. John Doe (January 7, 2014), section 6 of my judgment.)

Furthermore – differently. The read in remedy also seems fitting to me under the circumstances (compare to my opinion in APA 343/09, Jerusalem Open House for Pride and Tolerance v. The Jerusalem Municipality, September 14, 2010, there in para. 5.)

On the apparent difficulty that views the “catch all exception” section to have been initially proposed in the Knesset, but then rejected – indeed this is possible to overcome in light of the mistaken reasoning which led (as my colleagues’ opinions clarify) to the removal of that section from the agenda.

8.  As for the alternative option, suggested by my colleague Justice (Ret.) E. Arbel, insofar that it is original and creative, which indeed it is – it is also acceptable to me. The reasons for this is that the People’s Health Regulations (In Vitro Fertilization), 5747-1987 were left standing despite the Eggs Law, and thus it is possible that they indeed are supposed to regulate different cases than those covered by the Eggs Law. This solution is not free of flaws either (see regulation 8(b)(1) of these Regulations) however its advantage lies in the possibility that it provides the tools to overcome the provision of section 42 of the Eggs Law.
9. In conclusion – though the path to resolution which we – my colleagues and I – support is different in its reasoning, we all believe that the Petitioners’ Petition must be accepted. This also validates my general approach that when the consideration of basic legal issues – from different perspectives of the relevant statutes – leads, in every path, to a similar conclusion – this is a sign and indication that from a general legal philosophy the outcome is correct (see my opinion in CA 4244/12, Haaretz Newspaper Publication Ltd. v. Major General Efrayim Bracha (February 19, 2014), there in para. 35.)
10. As a result, were the minority opinions heard – the Petitioners would not have to travel beyond the sea to realize their desires.

                                                                  Justice

For all these reasons it was decided on September 1, 2013 to reject the Petition by a majority of opinions by President A. Grunis, Deputy President M. Naor, Justice E. Rubinstein, and Justice S. Joubran, against the dissenting opinions by Justices E. Arbel, E. Hayut and H. Melcer.

There is no order as to costs.

Reasons given today, September 18, 2014.

President                                 Deputy President                                Justice (Ret.)

Justice                                                 Justice                                                 Justice

                                                                        Justice

C.A. 238/53

AHARON COHEN and BELLA BOUSSLIK

v.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

In the Supreme Court sitting as a Court of Civil Appeal

[January 15, 1954]

Before Cheshin J., Silberg J., and Sussman J.

Family law - Husband and wife - Form of marriage ceremony - Impediment of marriage - Rabbinical Courts Jurisdiction (Marriage and Divorce) Law, 1953 - Alteration of substantive rights - No retrospective effect - Declaratory order.

                The appellants, Aharon Cohen and Bella Bousslik, went through a  form of marriage ceremony in the office of their advocate. They had previously requested the Rabbinate to marry them but since the petitioner, Cohen, was regarded as of, Priestly stock and Bella Bousslik was a divorcee, the Rabbinate refused to solemnize their marriage because of the Biblical injunction forbidding the marriage of a "Cohen" and a divorced woman.

                The office of the Registration of Inhabitants refused to register Cohen as a married man and the appellants then sought a declaration in the District Court that they were lawfully married. After the case had been heard but before judgment, the Rabbinical Courts Jurisdiction (Marriage and Divorce) Law, 1953, was passed by the Knesset. Section 1 of this Law1⁾ confers exclusive jurisdiction in matters of marriage of Jews in Israel, being nationals or residents of the State, upon the Rabbinical Courts. The District Court declined to make the declaration sought, and the appellants appealed.

            Held by a majority (Silberg and Sussman JJ.)

1) As the Rabbinical Courts Jurisdiction (Marriagge and Divorce) Law, 1953, alters substantive rights it does not operate retrospectively and the District Court had jurisdiction to make the order sought.

2) Notwithstanding the Biblical prohibition of a marriage between a "Cohen" and a divorcee, once such a marriage has been entered into in a manner recognised by Jewish law, that law regards them as husband and wife.

3) In the present case the marriage had been entered into in a manner recognised by Jewish law (by the intended husband handing the intended wife something of value, namely, a ring, in the presence of two witnesses) and accordingly the petitioners were entitled to the declaration sought.

Held by Cheshin J. dissenting:-

1) The Rabbinical Courts Jurisdiction (Marriage and Divorce) Law, 1953, affected procedure only, and operated with retrospective effect, and the District Court accordingly had no jurisdiction.

2) The granting of a declaratory order is a matter within the discretion of the courts and in the circumstances of the present case that discretion should be exercised against the petitioners and the order refused.

Palestine cases referred to:

(1)   C.A. 22/42 - Olga Waldar (also known as Azgour) v. Samuel Azgour and Another; (1942), 9 P.L.R. 328.

(2)   Cr. A. 4/38 - Abdul-Rahim Muhammad Nassar v. Attorney-General;(1938), 5 P.L.R. 65.

(3)        Cr. A. 6/38 - Issa Jaber Abou Iswai v. Attorney-General;(1938), 1 S.C.J. 64.

(4)        C.A. 158/37 -Leib Neussihin and Others v. Miriam Neussihin ; (1937), 4 P.L.R. 373.

(5)   C.A. 240/37 - Palestine Mercantile Bank Ltd. v. Jacob Fryman and Another; (1938), 5 P.L.R. 159.

(6)        H.C. 22/39 - Zussman Stark v. Chief Execution Officer, Tel Aviv and Another; (1939), 6  P.L.R. 323.

(7)   L.A. 136/26 - Saleh Salah Hamdan and Others v. Ma'mour Awkaf Nablus and Another; (1926), 3 C.O.J. 1119.

(8)   H.C. 76/36 - Josef Babayoff v. Chief Execution Officer, Jerusalem and Another; (1936), 4 P.L.R. 19.

(9)   C.A. 92/42 - Municipal Council of Jerusalem v. Hevrat Harchavat Hayishuv B'eretz Israel; (1942), 9 P.L.R. 503.

(10) C.C. 117/45, Tel Aviv-Moshe Nathaniel v. Joseph Cohen and Others; (1945), S.D.C. 695; C.A. 5/46 - (1947), 14 P.L.R. 313 (on appeal).

(11) C.A. 190/35 - Esther Banin v. Moshe Banin; (1936), 3 P.L.R. 71.

(12) H.C. 5/42 - Israel Rokach v. The District Commissioner, Lydda District, Jaffa and Others; (1942), 9 P.L.R. 191.

(13) H.C. 1/37 - Rivka Silberstein and Others v. Constable in Charge of the Police Lock-up, Haifa and Another; (1937), 1 S.C.J. 13.

(14) Motion 190/43, Jerusalem - Dr. Raphael Ossorguine and Others v. The Hotzaah Ivrith Ltd.; (1943), S.D.C. 144.

(15) C.C. 267/47, Tel-Aviv - Mordechai and Le'ah Levin v. Local Council Ramat Gan; Hamishpat, (1948), Vol. 3, 296.

Israel cases referred to:

(16)      H.C. 149/51 - Zigfrid Garler v. Maya Garler and Others; (1951), 5 P.D. 1399.

(17) H.C. 293/52 - Edna Amitsaur v. Chief Execution Officer, District Court, Tel Aviv and Others; (1953), 7 P.D. 98.

(18) Cr. A. 122/51 - Dov Ben-Avraham Ogapel and Others v. The Attorney-General; (1951), 5 P.D. 1672.

(19) Cr. A. 121/51 - David Epstein v. The Attorney-General, (1953), 7 P.D. 169.

(20) H.C. 71/49 - Izhak Kwatinski v. District Commissioner, Jerusalem and Others; (1950), 4 P.D. 815.

(21) C.A. 26/51 - Shimon Cotic v. Tsila (Tsipa) Wolfsohn ; (1951), 5 P.D. 1341.

(22) A. v. B. Appeal No. 1/60/706; (1950), Rabbinical Courts of Appeals (Collected Judgments), p. 132.

English cases referred to:

(23)      Marie Tilche Sasson v. Maurice Sasson; [1924] A.C. 1007.

(24)      Abbot v. The Minister for Lands; (1895), 72 L.T. 402.

(25)      Hitchcock v. Way; (1837), 112 E.R. 360.

(26)      In re Athlumney; Ex parte Wilson; [1898] 2 Q.B. 547.

(27)      In re Joseph Suche and Co., Limited (1875), 1 Ch.D. 48.

(28)      Hutchinson v. Jauncey; [1950] 1 All E.R. 165; [1950] 1 K.B. 574.

(29) Republic of Costa Rica v. Erlanger; (1876), 3 Ch. D. 62.

(30)      The Colonial Sugar Refining  Company, Limited v. Irving; [1905]    A.C. 369.

(31)      Guaranty Trust Company of New York v. Hannay and Company; [1915] 2 K.B. 536.

(32)      Richardson v. Mellish; (1824), 130 E.R. 294.

(33) Sasty Velaider Aronegary and his wife v. Sambecutty Vaigalie and others; (1881) 6 App. Cas. 364.

(34)      H. (otherwise D.) v. H.; [1953] 2 All E.R. 1229.

(35)      Leeds and County Bank, Ltd. v. Walker; (1882-3), 11 Q.B.D. 84.

(36)      James Gardner v. Edward A. Lucas and Others; (1878) 3 App. Cas. 582.

(37)      Kimbray v. Draper; (1868), L.R. 3 Q.B. 160.

(38)      Wright v. Hale and Another; (1860), 3 L.T. 444.

(39)      Warne v. Beresford; (1837), 150 E.R. 1002.

(40)      The Ironsides; (1862), 6 L.T. 59.

(41) Hamilton Gell v. White; [1922] 2 K.B. 422.

(42) Grand Junction Waterworks Co. v. Hampton Urban District Council; [1898] 2 Ch. 331.

(43) Dyson v. Attorney-General; [1911] 1 K.B. 410.

(44) Burghes v. Attorney-General; [1911] 2 Ch. 139.

(45) Russian Commercial and Industrial Bank v. British Bank for Foreign Trade, Ltd.; [1921] 2 A.C. 438.

(46)      Gray v. Spyer; [1922] 2 Ch. 22.

(47)      Thomas v. Attorney-General; (1936), 155 L.T. 312.

(48)      Har-Shefi v. Har-Shefi; [1953] 1 All E.R. 783.

(49)      Roesin v. Attorney-General; (1918), T.L.R. 417.

American case referred to:

(50)      Harril v. American Home Mortgage Co.; 1 Corp.Juris Sec., p. 1025.

South African case referred to:

(51) Martens v. Martens ; [1952] 3 S.A. L.R. 771.

Ganor for the appellants.

Weinberg, Deputy State Attorney, for the respondents.

SILBERG J. The subject of the appeal before us is the determinatian of the legal significance of an unusual act, namely the solemnization of the marriage of a Jew and a Jewess not in the Office of the Rabbinate, but in an advocate's office, by an advocate, after the Office of the Rabbinate had refused to solemnize it on the ground that it was contrary to Jewish law.

2. The particulars in the case are set out below. They present such a tangle of questions of law and fact, of law and ceremonial, of Jewish law and that of the State of Israel, that it is desirable to set them out in a detailed and systematic way:

            (a) The first appellant, Aharon Cohen, and the second appellant, Bella Bousslik, are Israeli Jews not figuring in the list of adult members of the Jewish Community of Palestine (Knesset Yisrael).

            (b) In 1949, the first appellant applied to the Offices of the Rabbinate in Tel Aviv and Ramat Gan for the solemnization of his marriage to the second appellant, who had shortly before been divorced from her husband by a bill of divorcement, in accordance with Jewish law. The appellant stated that in spite of his name Aharon Cohen1⁾, which suggested he was a descendant of Aharon the High Priest, he was not a priest and, therefore, the Biblical prohibition of the marriage of a man of priestly stock and a divorced woman (Leviticus XXI, 7) did not apply to him. The statement, however, did not satisfy the Rabbis, and they refused to grant his application.

            (c) In view of this refusal, the appellants proceeded to live together as man and wife in the same dwelling; they regarded themselves for all purposes as husband and wife and were reputed to be husband and wife by all their acquaintances. This state of things lasted until August-September 1952. About that time, the first appellant again applied to the Chief Rabbinate of Tel Aviv for permission to marry the second appellant, reiterating his claim that he was not of priestly descent. The learned Rabbis considered the application - this time not in their capacity as an Office of the Rabbinate, but as a Rabbinical Court - heard argument, took evidence, and ultimately rejected the application on the ground that the first appellant was at least "possibly of priestly descent" and could not, therefore, be granted permission to marry a divorcee.

            (d) A rumour then reached the appellants - we do not know how - that the rabbinical prohibition might be circumvented by the performance of a religious ceremony outside the Office of the Rabbinate, and they asked Mr. David Ganor, an advocate, to perform the ceremony for them. Mr. Ganor consented. He at first published a notice in two local newspapers to the effect that Mr. Aharon Cohen, "who is divorced and at liberty to marry", proposed to marry Mrs. Bella Bousslik, "who is divorced and at liberty to marry"; that the marriage would take place on December 16, 1952, "at an advocate's office in Tel Aviv"; and that "anyone being aware that either of the parties is disqualified from marrying the other may notify the advocate's secretary, Miss Haya Tomashin, to such effect."

            (e) When no opposition had been lodged with the aforementioned Miss Tomashin, Mr. Ganor, on December 16, 1952, prepared to perform the marriage ceremony. There appeared in his office the groom and bride, together with two witnesses specially invited for the purpose (Fisher and Hirsh), and two uninvited witnesses, namely, two police sergeants (Katz and Pachter) of the Investigation Branch of Tel Aviv District Headquarters, who had come to watch the "irregular" ceremony as guardians of the law, and were prepared to take part in it themselves as witnesses to the marriage. In the presence of all four witnesses, the first appellant took a gold ring from his pocket and gave it to the second appellant, saying as he did so: ''You are sanctified to me by this ring in accordance with the Law of Moses and Israel." Moreover - as he has explained to us, to enhance the validity of the proceedings - Mr. Ganor had the appellants and the two invited witnesses sign a special document - "special" in a twofold sense - styled by him "marriage deed (and settlement)". This deed certifies that "I, Aharon Cohen, do this day take Mrs. Bella Bousslik to wife by 'acquisition', that is to say, I sanctify her to me by a ring, etc.", and that "I, Bella Bousslik, after Aharon Cohen has taken me to wife this day ....hereby affix my signature to this deed to signify my consent to the marriage etc." The declarant, Aharon Cohen, further says in the deed: "As a settlement in accordance with age-old Jewish custom, I allocate to my wife, Bella Bousslik, an amount of IL. 5,000.-". This brief passage ostensibly justifies the description "settlement", which, as we have seen, figures (in brackets) at the top of the document. This is how the appellants' marriage ceremony was held - a marriage ceremony without a canopy, for a canopy, for some reason, was not put up either in or outside the advocate's office.

            (f) Some days after this ceremony the first appellant asked the Office of the Registration of Inhabitants of Tel Aviv at Hakirya to enter the change of his personal status from "single" to "married" in his identity booklet, but that office refused to do so on the ground that the marriage was not legal and not recognised by law.

            (g) Following this refusal, the appellants filed an application by way of motion against the Attorney-General in the District Court of Tel Aviv, asking for a judgment declaring that they were married one to the other. This application was accompanied by various sworn declarations - by the appellants (the applicants) themselves, by the invited witnesses to the marriage (Fisher and Hirsh) and by Mr. Ganor- certifying the main facts stated above. In connection with another application, for the early hearing of the case, a further sworn declaration was submitted by the first appellant (the first applicant), containing two paragraphs which give a hint, and perhaps more than just a hint, of the background of the matter. These two paragraphs read as follows :

            "6. Owing to the non-recognition of our marriage by the competent authorities, we are denied certain commodities, such as those due to the head of the family on a special ration card, and various income tax facilities. We are further caused unpleasantness when staying at an hotel in another town, since our identity booklets make us appear as unmarried people; this is most distressing for us.

            7. The non-recognition of our marriage threatens the economic security of one of us in the event of the death of the other, since only a person whose marriage is recognised shares in the inheritance of the other."

            (h) And now for the two other particulars which, although of a legal character, belong to this recital of facts. They are - if one may use the expression - two legal "facts", which, in the opinion of the court below determined the case against the applicants-petitioners  - the Jerusalem Ban, and the Marriage and Divorce Law.

(aa) The Jerusalem Ban. At the end of the winter of 1949, a national conference of Rabbis met in Jerusalem which, with the sanction of the Chief Rabbinate, considered and approved various rules of matrimonial law designed to regulate certain matters and to obviate certain difficulties in connection with matrimony and the solemnization of marriages. These rules contain the following paragraph :

''We prohibit every Rabbi or other person in Israel from solemnizing marriages, unless he has been authorised and appointed to perform this function by the writ and signature of the Chief Rabbis of the towns of Eretz Israel."

The rules conclude as follows:

            "These rules have been made by the Assembly of the Enlarged Council of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. The sanction against anyone breaking these rules is the imposition of a ban to be applied - as it has always been applied - with the full severity of the rules made by the Rabbis in Israel for all communities in Israel... and they shall be observed according to the letter until the Redeemer comes to Zion. The offender against any of them shall suffer the penalties of excommunication, ban and curse."1⁾

            These rules thus impose a ban on anyone solemnizing a marriage without being authorised to do so by the local rabbi and this ban, as appears from an earlier passage of the rules, applies to anyone "assuming the function of a witness to such a marriage." The act under consideration is thus affected by the ban both as regards the part played by the advocate and by the invited witnesses.

(bb) The Marriage and Divorce Law. The application in question was filed in the court below on January 1, 1953, and judgment was given on October 4, 1953. Between these two dates an important event took place. The Knesset enacted the Rabbinical Courts Jurisdiction (Marriage and Divorce) Law, 1953, which came into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette, i.e. on September 4, 1953 - exactly one month before the date of the judgment. I refer to Section 1, which enacts:

            "1. Matters of marriage and divorce of Jews in Israel, being nationals or residents of the State, shall be under the exclusive jurisdiction of rabbinical courts."

            From that date, it is quite immaterial whether or not the parties are members of the Jewish community of Eretz Israel, and it appears, at least prima facie - and this was also the opinion of the learned judge in the court below - that if the application had been filed after the coming into force of the said Law, the District Court would not have been competent to deal with the matter.

3. The Court below considered the application of the appellants, and rejected it after extensive discussion of the relevant Jewish law. I shall later revert to the reasons for the judgment. For the time being, it is sufficient to point out that the learned judge arrived at the opinion that of all the three ways in which a woman is 'acquired', "by money, by deed or by intercourse," (Kiddushin, I, 1) the most valid one in this case seems to have been the first, the 'acquisition' by something of value, but that method too was of doubtful validity, in view of the opinion expressed in rabbinical literature that a marriage performed in contravention of any ban (which applies also to the witnesses) is null and void, since the violation of the ban disqualifies the witnesses, and the marriage thus becomes one contracted without witnesses, which is invalid "even if both parties affirm that it has taken place" (Kiddushin 65^a; Shulhan Aruh, Even Ha-Ezer, 42, 2). This was considered to apply to the present case, too ; as a result of the Jerusalem Ban, the witnesses were disqualified; the disqualification of the witnesses entailed the nullity of the marriage - not only in form but in substance - so that it could not be recognised in a civil court either.

            The learned judge was not quite positive on this point. He did not overlook the fact that other authorities oppose the view just set out, whether as regards the disqualification of the witnesses or the resulting nullity of the marriage, but the result of this conflict of views is, in his opinion -

            "that considering the possible disqualification of the witnesses, the solemnization following the payment of something of value must be regarded as of doubtful validity and cannot be pronounced valid."

            The same doubt, though for other reasons, was expressed by him with regard to the validity of the solemnization by consummation. He sums up his remarks saying that since "not more has been proved than allows us to declare that the second applicant (the second appellant) is possibly married to the first applicant (the first appellant)", therefore, 'as it cannot be said with certainty that there has been no solemnization... it cannot be held, either, that the parties are married to each other."

            For this reason alone the learned judge was about to reject the application. But before he was able to pronounce judgment, the second legal fact mentioned came into existence, namely, the promulgation of the Rabbinical Courts (Marriage and Divorce) Law, 1953; and this was an additional, independent ground for rejecting the application. The opinion of the learned judge was that in view of the provision contained in section 1 of the Law, he no longer had power to decide upon the application, although the proceedings had begun before the passing of the Law.

            The learned judge thus placed his judgment on a two-fold basis.He rejected the application for lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively - in case the court of appeal should find that he had been competent to consider and determine the matter - on substantive grounds. It is against this judgment, and the two grounds upon which it is based, that the appeal before us is directed.

4. I shall first deal with the question of jurisdiction, the answer to which will open or close the door to the remaining questions which arise. That question falls into three parts:

(a)    Was the District Court competent to deal with the application when it was first filed, before the promulgation of the Marriage and Divorce Law?

(b)   Would the District Court have been competent to deal with the application had it been filed after the promulgation of the Marriage and Divorce Law?

(c)    If the answer to the first question is 'yes', and to the second 'no', how are we to decide a case where, as here, the application was filed before, but determined after, the promulgation of that Law?

5. I begin with the second question, declaring at once that, in my opinion, the answer to it must be a definite 'no'. Section 1 of the Marriage and Divorce Law provides that "matters of marriage and divorce of Jews in Israel, being nationals or residents of the State, shall be under the exclusive jurisdiction of rabbinical Courts." Now a declaration of the validity of a marriage is undoubtedly a "matter of marriage"; the parties in this case are Jews and nationals and residents of the State, and the first that they are not members of the Jewish Community of Eretz Israel is now irrelevant, since section 1 is principally designed to abolish the distinction between members and non-members of the Jewish community of Eretz Israel. This being so, exclusive jurisdiction over an application of this kind is today vested, by virtue of that Law, in the Rabbinical Courts, and the District Courts will not in future have power to entertain such an application.

            Our attention has been drawn to the judgment given by the Supreme Court in the case of Waldar (Azgour) v. Azgour (1), which seemingly contradicts the opinion I have just expressed; but that judgment is irrelevant here and has no bearing at all, even by way of analogy, on the question before us. It merely establishes, in reliance on the judgment of the Privy Council in Samson v. Samson (23), that the declaration of the validity of a divorce already effected is not a judgment of divorce (which cannot be granted to foreign nationals in view of Article 64(i) of the Palestine Order in Council 1⁾, but it does not say anywhere that such a declaration is not even a "matter of divorce" (within the meaning of Article 51 of the Order in Council), and there can be no doubt that the Supreme Court regarded that declaration as such a matter. Logic demands that we should hold that a declaration of the validity of a marriage must be regarded as a "matter of marriage". Is it possible that such a declaration, which ordinarily serves as the basis for the very existence of the matrimonial relationship of the couple, should not be regarded as a "matter of marriage" within the meaning of section 1 of the said Law or of Article 53(i)2⁾ of the Order in Council? It might well be said that both legislators, the Palestinian and the Israel, in referring to a "matter of marriage", meant first and foremost the making of such declarations. The least that can be said is that they certainly had no intention of excluding these declarations from the scope of that term. We can thus say that the declaration requested by the appellants is a "matter of marriage" within the meaning of section 1 of the Marriage and Divorce Law and that, if the application had been filed after the promulgation of the said Law, the District Court would undoubtedly not have been competent to deal with it.

6. It seems to me, on the other hand, that the answer to the first question should be in the affirmative, i.e. that during the period between January 1, 1953 (the date of the filing of the application) and September 4, 1953 (the date of the coming into force of the Marriage and Divorce Law) the District Court was competent to consider and determine the application of the appellants. The sole reason for this is that the parties were not members of the Jewish Community of Eretz Israel and that, therefore, the provisions of Article 53(i) of the Palestine Order in Council did not apply to them. It is true that I doubted, even before the promulgation of the Marriage and Divorce Law, the validity of the distinction between a member and a nonmember of the Jewish community of Eretz Israel, regarding the distinction as having lost its content immediately with the establishment of the State. However, it was then an accepted legal principle in Israel, and was adopted by this Court, although with various reservations and qualifications, even in cases which occurred after the establishment of the State (see Garler v. Garler (16), Amirsaur v. Chief Execution Officer (17), and others). We are thus not entitled to depart from this principle, and have to decide that before the promulgation of the Marriage and Divorce Law, i.e., until September 4, 1953, the District Court was certainly competent to consider and determine the application.

7. There thus arises the third of the above questions, namely, whether or not, in view of the fact that the application was filed before the promulgation of the Marriage and Divorce Law, the District Court was competent to decide upon it even after the promulgation of that Law, or, in more technical language, whether or not the provision in section 1 of the Marriage and Divorce Law is a retroactive provision which deprives the court of jurisdiction, even in actions begun before the promulgation of the Law.

8. Ostensibly, this problem may be solved by reference to certain basic rules governing the interpretation of statutes, that is, to the well-known distinction between substantive and procedural Laws. It is generally known that a new substantive Law, which changes the rights and obligations of a person, is entirely prospective, that is to say, unless the Law itself makes explicit or implicit provision to the contrary, it is presumed to operate prospectively and not retrospectively, and not to affect the rights that were vested in the parties at the time the proceedings began (for an interpretation of the term "vested right" or "right accrued", compare the judgment of the Privy Council in Abbot v. The Minister for Lands (24)). As regards a procedural Law, however, which changes the modes of procedure of the court, it is presumed that it operates retrospectively, that is to say, that the court is obliged to follow it even with regard to proceedings begun before its promulgation. This is an accepted principle which has found its expression in very many English judgments. I cite a few instances.

            "Where the law is altered, by statute, pending an action, the law as it existed when the action was commenced must decide the rights of the parties, unless the Legislature, by the language used, show a clear intention to vary the mutual relation of such parties." (Hitchcock v. Way (25).)

            "Perhaps no rule of construction is more firmly established than this - that a retrospective operation is not to be given to a statute so as to impair an existing right or obligation, otherwise than as regards matters of procedure, unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment. If the enactment is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation, it ought to be construed as prospective only." (Per Wright J., in re Athlumney, Ex parte Wilson (26).)

            "...it is a general rule that when the Legislature alters the rights of parties by taking away or conferring any right of action, its enactments, unless in express terms they apply to pending actions, do not affect them... there is one exception to that rule, namely, that where enactments merely affect procedure and do not extend to rights of action, they have been held to apply to existing rights." (Per Jessel M.R. in re Joseph Suche and Company Ltd. (27), vide Hutchinson v. launcey (28) at p. 168.)

            The gist of the idea of the retroactivity of new procedural provisions of law has been expressed by Lord Justice Mellish in one short, simple and clear sentence:

            "No suitor has any vested interest in the course of procedure, nor any right to complain, if during the litigation the procedure is changed, provided, of course, that no injustice is done." (per Mellish L.J. in Republic of Costa Rica v. Erlanger (29).)

            This and only this is the reason why a change in procedural law differs from a change in substantive law with regard to the question of retroactivity. The underlying consideration is that procedure is not a personal matter of the litigant; it is, so to speak, a preserve of the court, and therefore, if it is changed by the legislator, the change will operate also with regard to those parties who began to litigate before the change occurred.

9. But what I have said does not by itself provide a solution to our problem - therefore I have used the expression "ostensibly". The next and more difficult question is: what is the nature of the innovation introduced by the Marriage and Divorce Law, and must not the transfer of jurisdiction from the civil court to the religious court be here regarded as a fundamental change in the substantive law of the State? Not everything relating to court procedure is a procedural matter within the meaning of the above distinction. For instance, the right of appeal, a matter with which the court is unconcerned, is regarded, for the purposes of the principle in question, as a substantive right, and a new Law withdrawing it will not as a rule affect the position of a party whose case in the lower court began before the promulgation of that Law (see the judgment of this court in Ogapel and Others v. The Attorney-General (18), and Epstein v. The Attorney-General (19), and the judgment of the Privy Council in Colonial Sugar Refining Company v. Irving (30)).

10. But before embarking upon a discussion of this question let us see whether a solution to it cannot be found in the statute law of this country. I am thinking of section 17 of the Interpretation Ordinance,1945. Subsection (2) of that section provides :

"(2) Where any enactment repeals any Law, such repeal shall not, unless a contrary intention appears,-...

(c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability, acquired, accrued, or incurred, under any law so repealed ; or

(d) affect any penalty, forfeiture, or punishment, incurred in respect of any offence committed against any law so repealed ; or

(e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding, or remedy, in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment, as aforesaid, and any such investigation, legal proceeding, or remedy, may be instituted, continued, or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed, as if the repealing enactment had not been passed, made or issued."

Thus the text of the Law, as far as it is relevant to our case.

11. If the above section 17 (2) (e) did not use the words "may be instituted", there would be no doubt whatever in my mind that the provision of subsection (e) definitely solves our problem. The proceeding which began in the District Court under the old Law (the Order in Council) which empowered that Court to deal with matters of marriage of Jews not being members of the Jewish Community of Eretz Israel, is certainly a "legal proceeding", and consequently may "be continued" by virtue of the provision of subsection (e), until the passing of judgment, as if the "repealing enactment", i.e. section 1 of the Marriage and Divorce Law, "had not been passed, made or issued". But how are we to interpret the words "may be instituted" ? It is certain, as I have mentioned in para. 5 above, that today, after the promulgation of the Marriage and Divorce Law, the District Court is not competent to entertain proceedings in matters like the one in question. Now, if that is so, do not those words indicate that the reference is to a legal proceeding which has not been changed by the new Law, and which concerns a substantive right which has been so changed, and not to a legal proceeding which has itself been changed by the new Law ? For the legislator could not have permitted the institution of a legal proceeding under the old law unless he had in mind a change in the substantive, not the procedural, law.

            I think that this line of reasoning is not convincing. The simple solution is that the legislator had in mind two things: a change in the substantive law and a change in the procedural law. In the case of the former, a proceeding of the kind referred to in the Ordinance may be instituted and continued; in the latter case such a proceeding may of course be only continued, where it was begun before the promulgation of the new Law. The conclusion is that where, as in the present case, the new Law withdraws jurisdiction from one court and transfer it to another court or tribunal, this transfer of jurisdiction does not affect a proceeding begun previously, and the court may continue it until it has given judgment.

            Explicit proof of this is to be found in two judgments given by the Supreme Court in the Mandatory period, and to which the Attorney -General, most fairly, has drawn our attention, namely, Nassar v. Attorney-Jeneral (2), and Iswai v. Attorney-General (3). The question in those cases was whether, in view of a new Law which withdrew the power to deal with a certain offence from the District Court and vested it in the Military Court, the District Court was still permitted to try the accused, whose case had been referred to it prior to the promulgation of that Law. The court decided that it was. It reached this decision on the strength of section 5(1) of the Interpretation Ordinance, 1929 (Laws of Palestine, cap. 69), which agrees almost word for word with the above-quoted s. 17(2) of the Interpretation Ordinance, 1945. Some support for this view may, on close scrutiny, be found also in the dicta of Justice Dunkelblum in Kwatinski v. District Commissioner (2).

12. But even one who does not agree with the interpretation given above to section 17(2) (e) or consider himself bound by the two judgments rendered during the Mandatory period will in the present case arrive at the same conclusion, for the reason referred to in para. 9 above. I am of the opinion that the transfer of jurisdiction from a civil court to a religious court, in the course of the proceedings, would in effect be a substantive change in the legal position of the litigant. Let us not be unduly influenced by terms and concepts of alien origin, but try to see things in the light of our own realities. The additional authority granted to the Rabbinical Courts with the promulgation of the Marriage and Divorce Law was not authority for authority's sake, but authority for the purpose of a change in content in order to ensure the correct application of a particular law, namely, the Jewish law. They said "the vessel" and meant its contents1⁾ It was contended that it was immaterial who dealt with matters of marriage of the citizen so long as the law according to which they were dealt with was the Jewish religious law. But this contention was not accepted by those who fought for the adoption of the new Law, and from their point of view they were quite right. Jewish law as applied by a civil court is different from Jewish law as applied by a religious court. There is a difference in approach, in method, and sometimes also in the actual content of the judgment. For instance : in a civil court, everyone, even the party himself, may be a witness, while not everyone is qualified to give evidence in a religious court (see. e.g., the many categories of persons disqualified as witnesses enumerated in Shulhan Aruh. Hoshen Mishpat, 33 to 37). In Jewish law, "two are equivalent to a hundred", that is to say, if a hundred witnesses state that the husband is dead, and two state that he is not, the wife may not remarry, because she is possibly still bound to a living husband ; and if she has already remarried, she must be released from the new husband's control (Shulhan Aruh, Even Ha-Ezer, 17, 46; Ba'er Heitev, ibid. 127); the religious court may under no circumstances declare the absolute validity of the new marriage. But if (before the promulgation of the new Law) a civil court had had to deal with such a question, it would certainly have preferred the testimony of a hundred reliable witnesses and decided that the new marriage was valid.

            Yet, it is not only because of the different rules of evidence, but also because of the different approach to the substance of the case that the judgment of the civil court will not always be the same as that of the religious court, though both purport to deal with the matter according to Jewish law. One of the reasons for this is a different attitude towards the accepted principles of private international law, which require the recognition of the validity of legal acts done in the past, outside the territory of the State and under a foreign law, such as the national law of the parties or the law of their place of residence, and similar matters to be taken into consideration. The religious court regards itself as completely free from these "cramping" rules ; it extends the application of the religious law - a priori and unrestrictedly - to acts performed in the past by foreign nationals outside the boundaries of the State, and it is permitted so to do (Neussihin v. Neussihin (4)) ; the civil court, on the other hand will, to some extent at least, take those rules into account, even if it deals with the matter, in principle, according to Jewish law.

            In short: the differences between the jurisdiction of the civil court and the jurisdiction of the religious court are so profound and so fundamental, that in my opinion it is quite impossible to say that the transfer of authority by the new Law from the civil court to the religious court is merely a procedural change. Whatever its "official" description in customary terminology, this change, as we have seen, is in practice likely to affect decisively the substantive rights of the parties, and it should therefore be treated as a change in the substantive law, that is to say: the law should not be read retroactively, and it should be declared that the transfer of jurisdiction does not deprive the civil court of the power to consider and determine a matter with which it had begun to deal before the promulgation of the new Law.

13. The conclusion at which I have arrived is, therefore, that as the application was filed in the court below before the promulgation of the Marriage and Divorce Law, that court was competent to consider and determine it even after the promulgation of that Law.

14. It is fitting at this point to deal with a contention brought forward by Mr. Weinberg, the representative of the Attorney-General. That contention is that even if the Court was competent to deal with the application, and even assuming that from the point of view of the substantive law the parties are married to each other, the court should have dismissed the application, because the grant of a declaratory judgment in the circumstances is contrary to public policy. There are in this country - Mr. Weinberg submits - various provisions of law aimed at regulating matters of registration of marriages in a proper and orderly fashion through the competent authorities. He had in mind the Marriage and Divorce (Registration) Ordinance, 1919. That Ordinance says that the registering authority, in the case of a Jewish marriage, is the Rabbi. This means that the legislator particularly intended that a Rabbi, and not a private person, should perform the marriage ceremony and that, in the language of our sources, "anyone who does not know the nature of divorce and betrothal shall not deal with them" (Kiddushin 6a). Public policy, too, in such serious matters, in which the community is also interested, demands that not everyone who claims authority should be permitted to exercise it. The action of the appellants thus constituted both a circumvention of the law and an infringement of public policy, and they should therefore not be granted the declaration for which they applied. Accordingy, the representative of the respondent concluded, the learned judge was right - though not for the reason given by him - in rejecting the application of the appellants.

            I must confess that this contention appealed to me, and that I was almost on the point of accepting it. Upon reflection, however, I realized that it was not well-founded. It is true that such acts, in themselves, infringe upon public policy, and that there can be no greater "mischief" than the performance of such "private" marriage ceremonies. It is moreover correct that with regard to the grant of declaratory judgments the court has a certain discretion and will refuse relief prayed for where it would not be equitable to grant it (Guaranty Trust Co. v. Hanney & Co. (31)). I am prepared to add: or where the grant of the application would be contrary to public policy. But I am still not prepared to say that in the present case, after the act in question has been carried through, the act being legal according to religious law and therefore also according to civil law, it would be contrary to public policy to declare explicitly the validity of that act. All that the parties requested the court to do was to tell them what, according to the civil law, was the legal status of their marriage; and if the civil law endorses in this matter the religious law and recognizes the validity of the marriage, how can it be said that the declaration of this fact is contrary to public policy ? In any case, it is not particularly healthy and safe to rely on considerations of public policy in withholding the grant of a declaratory judgment. An English judge said 130 years ago that "public policy" was "a very unruly horse, and when once you get astride of it you never know where it will carry you." (Richardson v. Mellish (32)).

            I am of opinion that in this respect, too, there was nothing to prevent the court below from granting the appellants the relief they prayed for, provided only that their arguments were well-founded.

15. This brings us to the last, and most difficult, part of this appeal, namely, the question whether the learned judge was right in deciding that the validity of the marriage of the appellants could not be recognised according to Jewish law. A particular difficulty arises from the fact that the learned judge, as will be remembered, did not definitely rule that the marriage was null, but only that it was of doubtful validity, so that, in effect, he left the question open and refrained from deciding the legal problem confronting him.

            With all due respect to the learned judge, it seems to me that this is not the correct approach. "Teach your tongue to say: I know not" (Berahot 4^a) is not an injunction addressed to a judge, who should, rather, as a general rule, arrive at a definite opinion on every legal question arising before him. Here the judge was faced - as he saw the matter - with a disagreement between the authorities as to the disqualification of witnesses by reason of a ban; and despite his understandable reluctance to become involved in the debate between these great authorities, it was his duty to reach a decision in the matter for the purposes of the concrete case before him. Proof of this duty - if such proof be required - may be found in the following pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Palestine Mercantile Bank Ltd. v. Fryman (5) :

"If the Ottoman Law is not clear it is the duty of the judges to expound it, however difficult it may be."

            From a purely legal point of view, as distinguished from the religious point of view, which deals with "prohibitions" and which always tends, in cases of doubt, to forbid, there is in Jewish law no special marriage status because of the doubt that perhaps a marriage has been contracted (see Kiddushin 5^b : "Where there is a doubt, it is only on prescription of the Sages that we suspect a marriage", and Rabbi Nissim, in his commentary on Alfasi, Responsa of the Maharik). The doubt which can arise is what is the exact legal status of such people, and where the doubt arises out of judicial conflicts between great authorities, the judge is bound, in this as in any other question of law, to arrive at a decision which is both certain and clear, however humble he may feel himself to be.

            We therefore have to supply what, to our regret, the learned judge has omitted and to try to take a stand, one way or the other, on the questions he left open.

16. A woman, in Jewish law, is "acquired" in three ways : by money, by deed, or by intercourse; and the contention of counsel for the appellants is that his clients have adopted all three methods: solemnization by something of value - by the giving of the ring ; solemnization by the "marriage deed" - by the delivery of the so-called "marriage deed" ; and solemnization by intercourse - by living together as husband and wife. As to the third method, he invokes of course the legal presumption that no man will indulge in sexual intercourse for the purpose of sin (Yevamot 107^a, Gittin 81^b, Ketubot 73^a), for were it not for this presumption, there would be no evidence of intention, which as is well known, is required also for a marriage by intercourse (Shulhan Aruh, Even Ha-Ezer, 26, 1). In addition to that, Mr. Ganor invokes a presumption of another kind, the presumption of "repute" - that is, where a man and a woman were reputed to be husband and wife for at least 30 days, an adulterer with the wife will be able to be punished (Yerushalmi Kiddushin IV, 8), and Mr. Ganor argues that whereas the appellants have been reputed for a long time as married to each other among all their acquaintances, this "presumption by itself creates a sort of matrimonial bond between them." These are, very succintly, the contentions of counsel for the appellants.

17. For brevity's sake, I will begin with the last three contentions of counsel for the appellants and say at once that in my opinion they are completely unfounded, and provide no basis for assuming - or even for having any doubt in the matter - that the marriage of the appellants is valid.

            (a) Solemnization by Marriage Deed. It is obvious even to a person with only a rudimentary knowledge of rabbinical law that the "marriage deed" (and settlement) drawn up by Mr. Ganor can on no account, either as to its form or as to its contents, be regarded as a real marriage deed. A marriage deed in Jewish law is a constitutive document, which itself (by its delivery) creates the legal bond between the partners, and not a declaratory document, confirming something that has already taken place.

            "What is the procedure for a marriage deed? The man writes on a piece of paper or a clay tablet... 'thou art sanctified unto me', and gives it to the woman in the presence of witnesses", (Shulhan Aruh, Even Ha-Ezer, 32, 1; the source is Kiddushin 9^a).

            The object of the marriage deed is constitutive and not probative - the creation of the matrimonial relationship (upon delivery of the deed) and not the evidencing of it (although some say that under certain circumstances a marriage deed may serve also as evidence: see the Responsa of R. Yosef Kolon, Shoresh 74, and compare the Responsa of R. Shmuel of Modena, (known and hereinafter referred to as "Rashdam") Even Ha-Ezer, 2 and ibid., 21, the latter quoted in paragraph 20 below). But what did Mr. Ganor instruct the appellants to do? He had them sign a document in which they certified to each other that they had already bound themselves by way of solemnization by something of value, i.e. through the delivery of the ring. This is what the first appellant declared:

"I, Aharon Cohen, do this day take Mrs. Bella Bousslik to wife by 'acquisition', that is to say, I betroth her unto me by a ring..."

            And the second appellant stated:

            "I, the undersigned, Bella Bousslik, after Aharon Cohen has taken me to wife this day... hereby affix my signature to this deed.. ."

            It is obvious that a marriage was not here performed by means of the deed, but that the deed attests that a marriage has been performed independently of it; and such a document, whatever its name, can on no account serve as a marriage deed, which in Jewish law effects the solemnization.

            (b) Solemnization by intercourse. This, too, has not taken place in the present case since there is no evidence that the relations between the parties were maintained "for the purpose of solemnization". The presumption that "a man does not indulge in intercourse for the purpose of sin" does not in my opinion apply here, for the following reason. This presumption is, in the final analysis, the legal conclusion from the well-known principle : "a man does not abstain from doing what is allowed to him and prefer doing what is forbidden to him", which means: where two ways are open to a man, one legitimate and the other illegitimate, normally a man does not leave the legitimate and choose the illegitimate way. Therefore when a man has sexual intercourse with a woman, we prefer to say that he did so for marriage, rather than to say that he did so for sin, for it is forbidden to have intercourse with an unmarried woman. Thus it is laid down (Shulhan Aruh, Even Ha-Ezer, 149, 1):

            "The presumption is that a man does not indulge in sexual intercourse for the purpose of sin, because he can indulge in sexual intercourse in obedience to the law."

            The emphasis is thus placed on the religious aspect: on the willingness of a person to prefer a lawful act to a transgression; therefore the presumption in question is inapplicable to the present case. The appellants had applied to the Rabbinate Offices for the solemnization of their marriage and had been turned away; they had applied to the Chief Rabbinate Tel Aviv, for a licence with equal ill-success. The reason given was that the appellant, Aharon Cohen, was at least possibly of priestly stock and could not therefore marry a divorced woman. This ruling of a high religious authority, expert in the matter, cannot be questioned by us as far as the religious aspect is concerned, so that for the purposes of this case, we have to assume that the appellant was indeed prohibited from having the solemnization performed. Now if religious considerations should have prevented the man from marrying the divorcee, and if by doing so he violated the religious code, how can he, in respect of that very act, invoke a presumption which, as we have seen, is based entirely upon the idea that a person will not wish to commit a sin?

            Here it may be objected that we cannot definitely say that the first appellant has broken a religious rule. Even according to the decision of the Rabbis, he is only possibly of priestly stock, that is to say, he is either a priest or an ordinary Israelite; so he may in reality be an ordinary Israelite, permitted to marry a divorcee. Can we say that the presumption does not apply on the strength of a mere doubt?

            My answer to this is that a presumption to which a doubt attaches ceases to be a valid presumption and cannot establish a valid marriage even because of doubt. For "a slight doubt cancels out much that is certain", and anyway there was no evidence here of any intention to solemnize a marriage.

            I shall clarify the matter. The presumption that a man does not indulge in sexual intercourse for the purpose of sin is, on close scrutiny, some substitute for direct evidence on the issue of the intention to solemnize a marriage. It is quasi-evidence similar to judicial notice, which is founded on contentions of logic. We ourselves are witnesses, everyone of us, that that man surely intended to live in marriage, for that is the "presumption", that is to say, it is something we know from our observation of the nature of man, that he does not reject the legitimate and prefer the illegitimate, and therefore we take it for granted that he intended to be married. In the case before us, as I have already said, we have to proceed on the assumption that the first appellant is at least possibly of priestly stock; that is to say, we have to assume that possibly this man is indeed a 'priest', and knows that he is, and if in spite of this fact he is prepared to marry a divorcee, it shows that he is not strict in the observance of religious prohibitions. The consequence of this doubt is that we, the "witnesses", are not certain that the appellant intended that the sanctification should be solemnized by the act of intercourse itself, and we are unable to attest this; it follows that the solemnization by intercourse is, at most, a solemnization without witnesses, which does not create a marriage even where marriage is intended. An explicit rule provides that even when a man had intercourse with a woman not for the purpose of sin but for the purpose of matrimony, but the intercourse took place in private, then the woman is not regarded as his wife (Tur Shulhan Aruh, Even Ha-Ezer, Hilchot Kiddushin, 26, 1; Shulhan Aruh, Even Ha-Ezer, ibid.), meaning she is not regarded as his wife for any purpose.

            In the present case, the position is consequently this. Although the fact of the appellants' living together proves abundantly - just as the evidence of eyewitnesses would prove, in the above sense - the existence of sexual relations between them, it gives no indication at all of the intention involved in having such relations, i.e. of whether or not the parties had such relations for the purpose of matrimony. The solution to this question must be sought in the presumption that a man does not indulge in sexual intercourse for the purpose of sin; but this presumption, as I have already said, does not apply here because of the doubts involved; and in the absence of this presumption, there is no evidence of intention which is one of the material elements for the validity of a marriage.

            It follows from the above that the said presumption cannot be relied on in this case.

            (c) Presumption of reputation. This presumption does not help the appellants either. The problem - if problem there be - may here be solved in a few words. The presumption is that if a couple come to another town, introduce themselves there to everybody as husband and wife, and are reputed to be such for at least thirty days, it is assumed as a fact that they have contracted a marriage in the manner prescribed by the Jewish religion. This presumption is not peculiar to Jewish law but occurs also, in one form or another, in English common law (see the judgment of Aronegary v. Vaigalie (33)). But what is the nature of this presumption? Its nature is, both in Jewish and in English law, that it does not create, but proves the matrimonial relationship. Its effect is the exact opposite of that of the marriage deed, as explained above. This being so, it is quite useless in this case, for we need no proof of facts, and a relationship cannot be created by it. We know all the facts, all the processes of solemnization gone through by the appellants ; the question is only ; what is the value of these processes, and how can they be supported by that presumption? The latter, as stated, evidences facts, but is unable to create facts, to transform an unmarried woman into a married one.

18. To sum up: The appellants can rely neither on solemnization by marriage deed, nor on solemnization by consummation, nor on a presumption arising from their being reputed to be husband and wife. From these three points of view they certainly cannot be regarded as married.

19. There remains the last question: is there no basis here for assuming solemnization by something of value? Should the appellants not be regarded as husband and wife because of the ring which the first appellant gave to the second appellant at Mr. Ganor's office?

            The learned judge, as will be remembered, rejected this contention, but not decisively; he regarded the ceremony in question as of doubtful validity. The reason was that according to the Responsa of the Rashdam, Even Ha-Ezer, 21 (quoted by the learned judge from Freimann's well-known "Seder Kiddushin Ve-Nissu'een", p. 172), an infringement of the Salonica Ban on sanctifying a woman "otherwise than in the presence of ten witnesses" disqualifies the witnesses, and disqualification of the witnesses makes the marriage null, as does a sanctification without any witnesses; the witnesses in the present case seemed further disqualified, and the ceremony invalid, as a result of the Jerusalem Ban quoted above. Although many disagreed with the Rashdam the matter still seems to be in doubt, and it therefore seemed impossible to declare the marriage valid, as requested by the appellants.

            Mr. Ganor relied on a judgment of the Rabbinical Court of Appeal in Israel, in Case No. 1/60/706 (22), where the court ruled that a "secret marriage" performed between a man of priestly stock and a divorced woman, in the presence not of ten, but of only two witnesses, without a canopy, without benedictions and without a rabbi, was valid "and made her the man's wife for his lifetime" (ibid.p. 135). The learned judge did not consider this reference and made no comment upon it. The reason for this is, I suppose, that he saw an important difference between the two cases in the fact that the earlier one occurred some twenty years before, and the present one, as will be remembered, after the imposition of the Jerusalem Ban. In actual fact, however, this distinction is of no importance, because although the Jerusalem Ban was not in existence at the time of the earlier case, there did exist - as a perusal of the earlier judgment will show - other rules that were violated, but this did not induce the learned Rabbis to disqualify the witnesses and invalidate the marriage.

            On careful examination of the dicta of the learned judge, and the sources on which they are based, we find that the invalidation of a marriage because of witnesses being disqualified through the infringement of the Ban receives support - ostensibly - only in a responsum of the Rashdam, Even Ha-Ezer, 21, and in a passage of R. Yosef Mitrani's Responsa, Part One, 138 (Fourth Impression, 5528, fol. 99B) which relies on the aforementioned opinion of the Rashdam. The other references given in the judgment of the learned judge are the following (in the order of their occurence):

1) Responsa of Maharchash, Even Ha-Ezer, Article 42;

2) Responsa "Shoel U-Meshiv", 3rd Ed., part One, Article 239;

3) Responsa "Be'or Moshe", Kuntras Kevod Hachamim, Article 9;

4) Yeshuot Yaakov to Even Ha-Ezer, Article 28;

5) Responsa "Minhat Eleazer", Part Three, Article 39;

6) Response "Divrei Malkiel", Part Four, Article 119.

            The first, fifth and sixth of the above authorities come to the conclusion that a marriage should not be invalidated for the reason in question; the second and third do not touch at all upon the question of the disqualification of the witnesses, and apparently base the invalidation of the marriage on another reason; the fourth gives no decision one way or the other, either on the question of disqualification or on the question of invalidation (compare Freimann, op. cit., pp. 320-322). It should be pointed out here that the author of "Shoel U-Meshiv" who was quoted by the learned judge as aforesaid, in another responsum deals expressly with the question of the disqualification of the witnesses by reason of a violation of the Ban, and reaches the definite conclusion that a marriage should not be invalidated on account of such a disqualification (Response "Shoel U-Meshiv", ibid. Part Two, Article 157). It follows that we have to deal here solely with the significance of the rule laid down by the Rashdam in his above-mentioned responsum.

20. Upon perusal of the text of the Rashdam's responsum, it seems to me, with all due respect to the learned judge, that the Rashdam's decision, too, should not have led him to dismiss the application of the appellants.

            There are many reasons for this.

            a) I am of the opinion that the Rashdam - one of the principal originators of the Salonica Ban - did not himself intend the extreme conclusion drawn from his responsum by the learned judge and, as far as I know, such an intention was not attributed to him in the controversy which arose in his own times over the question of the disqualification of the witnesses. Let us now acquaint ourselves with the Rashdam's responsum and examine the case decided by him.

   A young man gave out that he had sanctified, through solemnization by money, his brother's daughter, a girl of twelve or thirteen, and produced in evidence a deed certifying the act of solemnization. The deed was signed by two witnesses, "and the deed was confirmed - that is to say, the signature of the witnesses were authenticated - by three laymen" (i.e. three persons who were not expert religious judges or experts at all). Two or three days later, the matter came before the community and the witnesses began to back out of the awkward affair :

            "One of them said that the alleged incident had never taken place, the other said that it was true that he (the young man) had given her (the girl) such and such a sum, but that he had not told her at all (that he was sanctifying her thereby); he had only said to the witnesses : 'be my witnesses' ; and he (the witness) said that he had not heard it".

            There was thus ground for the assumption that the whole matter was a fabrication. But what was to be done when according to law a witness could not go back on his original testimony (Ketubott 18^b and elsewhere)? The only question to be considered was, therefore, what value attached to that deed, and whether it could serve as legal evidence of the act of solemnization. The Rashdam (who lived in Salonica -" the events took place in the 16th Century) was requested to make a thorough investigation. He studied the case in all its aspects, and ruled that the solemnization in question was undoubtedly null, and that the girl was still unmarried. What led him to this decision? We shall do well to quote his own fine words, which reflect  - both directly and between the lines - the warm heart and the keen brain of a great humanitarian (I am giving only the main passages):

"Responsum. In my humble opinion they are not to be regarded as husband and wife, and I will set out my reasons. First of all, it is well known within this city (Salonica), that both saintly men who have died in the meantime and men who are still alive among us, have agreed and pronounced, and have imposed a severe and absolute Ban, at a great assembly held on the Sabbath of Chanukkah in the Talmud Torah Society, that no woman shall be sanctified unless in the presence of 10 witnesses, all of or above the age of 18 years, and witnesses testifying to sanctifications otherwise than aforesaid, should be banned, and all this is very well known within this city."

            And after raising several doubts on the position of the law which might tend to tip the scales to a more vigorous conclusion, he continues as follows:

            "I do not disregard these stricter opinions, but nevertheless I have not hesitated to search for ways and means to find in favour of this girl. And this is what every humane man should do, so that fraud should not be rewarded, and criminals not be given the benefit of their evil deeds when they take advantage of young girls deceitfully and wrongfully, to bind them unto them as if they had captured them by sword."

            "After God has taught us all this, there can to my mind be no doubt that this marriage cannot at all be regarded as sanctified. If we were to be strict because of the deed, the Rashba has already written that a deed of sanctification in itself is no evidence : and it is clear that such a deed does not prove anything. Thus there is no doubt that as far as the deed is concerned, the marriage need not be recognised, and if we were to be strict because of the testimony of the witnesses who, when called upon to confirm their signatures before the three, orally testified as to their witnessing the marriage, there is surely in this also nothing whatever, for several reasons:

(a) most of the authorities have laid this down that testimony which has been taken in the absence of a party is no evidence;

(b) those witnesses have transgressed a ban, and thereby disqualified themselves from testifying."

            It is obvious that the Rashdam did not invalidate the solemnization on the ground that the witnesses had already been disqualified while watching the proceedings, so that this was a "marriage" without witnesses; rather, he invalidated the evidence given subsequently by the disqualified witnesses, and did not admit it as valid proof of the facts (which, as we have seen, were very doubtful). In other words : he did not invalidate the actual, physical "witnessing", but the giving of evidence, the statement of the witnesses (before the three "laymen") after the event. If the Rashdam had been of the opinion - as the learned judge assumes - that the witnesses were already disqualified at the time of the solemnization, why did he choose a roundabout way, rather than say, briefly and simply, that the marriage of the child was null and void even if the facts were as stated in the deed ?

            b) The second case in which the Rashdam deals with the question of the disqualification of witnesses on account of the Ban (Responsa of the Rashdam, Even Ha-Ezer, 27) - and which was the subject of a sharp controversy between him and his chief opponent, R. Izhak Adarbi (Responsa "Divrei Rivote", 225 and 226) - likewise exclusively concerns the invalidation of testimony taken after the solemnization. It involves two rival bridegrooms, each claiming to have sanctified the woman in question, and each producing evidence to this effect. Again we can do no better than read the actual text of the responsum which contains most interesting folklore material on the life of the Jewish community and the jealousies between the different congregations within the communities in the Balkan countries at the end of the 16th Century :

"The youth Yosef son of Tishtiel had sanctified Gamila daughter of R. Izhak Herbon. The youth had lived in the house of his father-in-law for a long time ; he ate, drank and plied his trade there. Eventually, the girl's father conceived some grudge against him and threw him out of the house, and he went far away. The girl remained as he left her for nearly a year and a half. Then her father wished to arrange a marriage between her and another youth, and she, for fear of her father, revealed nothing to him and kept silent. She never gave the other youth a friendly look... Then the (other) youth gave out that he had betrothed the said girl Gamila, and the Rabbi of the congregation of the other youth was willing to accept the testimony of the witnesses (to the betrothal of the second youth)...

            In the meantime, the first bridegroom was in Constantinople when he sent a deed signed by two witnesses attesting that he had betrothed his aforesaid bride. Then the court of the congregation of the girl appointed a bench of three from among the learned members of the Yeshiva, 1⁾ and they sent for the girl..... and they sent for the witnesses. One of them was found in the city; he appeared, attested his signature, and attested orally everything stated in the deed. The second (witness) was not found in the city, but two witnesses appeared and attested his signature and the deed was confirmed.

            Then one of the judges went to talk to the girl, and exhorted her to tell the truth. She said that it was true that she had become sanctified to the first youth, in the presence of the witnesses to the deed, knowingly and willingly without the knowledge of her father and mother. The judge then asked her why she had said nothing when she saw that her father had negotiated her marriage to another man. She replied that she had been afraid of her father and had thought that the truth would come out in time ; she substantiated this latter statement by pointing out that all the neighbours knew from personal observation that she had never given the other youth a friendly look...

            The next day, this Yosef (the first bridegroom) and the father of the girl appeared before the court of the congregation of the girl. The second bridegroom and his father also appeared. The court asked him to produce his evidence, and he impudently declared that he would not bring his witnesses before them, but only before his own Rabbi. They told him to bring his witnesses anyway, and if his Rabbi wished, he could come too.

            On a Wednesday morning, while we were studying at the Yeshiva, members of the congregation of the second bridegroom's Rabbi appeared to produce the record of the evidence which they had taken ; and we were verily furious at so much impertinence, and seeing that all their goings on were just hocus-pocus, we did not trouble to investigate anything.

            The eminent Rabbi Yosef Bibas then ordered the father of the girl to have his daughter brought under the wedding-canopy with the first bridegroom, which he did. There the matter remained for nearly a fortnight. The bride groom sanctified his wife in public under the wedding -canopy, and on the Sabbath he gave a great feast. Nobody said anything until, a fortnight later, a different mood came over them - the work of the devil......"

            There ensued a quarrel between the two Rabbis - the one of the congregation of the first bridegroom and the one of the congregation of the second bridegroom. Each of the rabbis pleaded for "his" bridegroom and invoked his decision. The matter was brought before the Rashdam, who wrote as follows :

"..... God knows and is witness how reluctant I am to assume authority in matters like these, but since the event has already taken place (the reference to the wedding ceremony), I am compelled to rule, and have no hesitation, that this woman is his absolutely lawful wife married to her husband Yosef (the first bridegroom)."

            The Rashdam then embarks on an analysis of the law and continues as follows : -

            "In the present case I do not say only that there is some slight suspicion of marriage, but the matters appear to me to be as clear as the sun, for several reasons :

(a) There are several witnesses who testified that the girl never showed the second man any friendliness, and if that is so, how can it be assumed that she would have accepted him in marriage without the concurrence of her parents ?

         (b) At the outset, when the suspicion arose that false witnesses were being sought, we asked the Rabbi that he should now take the evidence of the second man and warn him to bring his witnesses before us - and we did this not only once, but twice - without avail ; the whole country knows the Ban which was pronounced about a year ago in the Talmud Torah Society, that no man may sanctify a woman where there are only two witnesses present, and that all witnesses must be of or above the age of 18 years.

         All these matters go to prove clearly that everything was made up and fabricated, and the witnnesses were just afraid to appear before us."

            We see here, too, that the result of the disqualification of the witnesses by reason of the Ban was, not that the sanctification was void ab initio, but that the testimony taken on it subsequently - in the case before the Rabbi of the "opposing congregation" - could not be relied upon. The Rashdam, as we have seen at the end of his opinion, used this argument as additional support for his finding that there was no truth in the statements of the witnesses of the second bridegroom.

            Thus, as I said before : the Rashdam did not invalidate the act of sanctification but the testimony of the witnesses given subsequently with regard to that act. If that is so, and the reference is to the invalidation not of the material evidence but of the mode of taking the evidence, then such invalidation can have no bearing on the case before us, because -

1) the civil court is not bound by the rules of evidence of the religious law, and may, in any matter, take evidence also from a person not qualified to give evidence under Jewish law (see Cotic v. Wolfsohn (21)) ;

2) (and this is perhaps the main point) there is no dispute between the appellants and the respondent as to the act itself : everybody agrees that the first appellant has performed the act of sanctification. The question is only whether he has also succeeded in thereby sanctifying the woman to him, and this question, as is apparent, is totally unaffected by the disqualification of the witnesses after the fact ; incidentally, even in Jewish law,if both partners declare that the sanctification has taken place before two competent witnesses, they are bound by their declaration as regards the prohibitions resulting from their union (he is forbidden to her relatives, and she is forbidden to his) ; only where he has sanctified her in private, i.e. without witnesses, "a marriage is not recognised even if both of them admit it" ( Kiddushin 65^a , Shulhan Aruh, Even Ha-Ezer, 42, 2).

The Rashdam was one of the chief sponsors of the Salonica Ban ; he was foremost among those who spoke of the disqualification of the witnesses on account of that Ban ; nonetheless, as we have seen, he did not intend to invalidate the sanctification itself. Now if the Rashdam did not do so, how could his disciples? So I do not agree with the view that the Salonica Ban entailed the invalidity of the sanctification, and I am therefore of the opinion that the infringement of the Jerusalem Ban, too, did not invalidate the sanctification performed by the first appellant.

            c) At this point it will be asked : why, indeed, were the witnesses not disqualified at the time of the actual sanctification ? If the infringement of the Ban disqualified witnesses attending the ceremony, surely the sanctification itself was invalidated.

            The answer is to be found in the Responsa of Rabbi Shabtai Cohen, Part III, 1 (I have not been able to obtain the original, and therefore quote from Freimann, op. cit., p. 175). After Rabbi Shabtai - fellow-townsman and near-contemporary of the Rashdam - states that in spite of the numerous cases of "fraudulent sanctification in the presence of two witnesses" which occurred in his time in Salonica, he has never heard of a decision invalidating a sanctification on account of the infringement of the Ban by the witnesses, he raises the question as to the reason for this and offers the following solution :

            "It seems in my humble opinion, that the possible reason for this is that there are no grounds for disqualifying them (as witnesses to the sanctification) because of their infringement of the Ban, since that infringement took place while they were witnessing the sanctification, and they were not under any prior disqualification before attending the ceremony ; it follows that they did not become disqualified until after the woman was sanctified. The sanctification is thus completed. but the witnesses are 'wicked men' and disqualified from then on­wards."

            The language is somewhat difficult, but the idea is simple and clear : a person who becomes disqualified as a witness by reason of having committed a sin becomes so upon completion of the sin, in the present instance upon completion of attendance at the sanctification; by the time the witnesses become disqualified, the sanctification is already complete and valid.

            Exactly the same idea, in relation to a very similar question, occurs in the Responsa of Rabbi Moshe Rotenberg, Hoshen Mishpat, 5 (quoted in Pithei Teshuva, Hoshen Mishpat, 34, 5, 14). The question there was the legal validity of the evidence where the witnesses (as in that case) had by the very act of testifying in court, infringed a prohibition of the Torah. Is the evidence admissible or inadmissible ? The answer was : there has been the commission of a sin, but no disqualification, because the disqualification was as a result of the giving of evidence and committed only thereafter.

            This arithmetic of hours and minutes will doubtless seem to many as formalistic or an empty quibble; but such criticism will not be justified. It should be remembered that the disqualification of "a wicked man" from giving evidence, originating as it does in most cases in a particular passage of the Torah (see Sanhedrin 25^a and Baba Kama 72^b), is itself only a formalistic disqualification, a disqualifcation imposed by the law, operating quite regardless of the actual credibility or reliability of the witness (see Rabbi Shabtai Cohen, Hoshen Mishpat, 34, 1, 3). Therefore it is only just that we should watch most jealously the limits of such disqualification, even in a formalistic manner, for the very purpose of restricting the consequences of that other formalism.

            d) Although, perhaps, it is unnecessary, yet, to prevent all misapprehension, I would nevertheless emphasize that paras. (a) to (c) above refer solely to Bans such as the Salonica Ban and the Jerusalem Ban, which do not themselves, directly and by express provision, invalidate a marriage solemnized in contravention of them. I am not unaware that, in the Middle Ages and later, certain communities enacted "regulations" ("takkanot") or "agreed rules"("haskamot") which expressly and directly - by judicial "expropriation" of the sanctification money or by reference to the principle that a man who sanctifies presumably does so in conformity with the Rabbinical precepts (Gittin 33^a) - invalidated sanctifications not so complying. It is very doubtful, though, whether these regulations could actually have had the effect of invalidating marriages ; very few Rabbis applied them in practice and not only in theory. However, this question does not concern us, for the Jerusalem Ban, at least, contains no such invalidating provision. The question before us was merely whether this Ban causes invalidation of the marriage indirectly, through the disqualification of the witnesses, and as explained above, my answer to this question is in the negative.

            e) I have given consideration to a further point which, independently, forces us to conclude that the marriage of the first appellant is not invalid because of the infringement of the Ban by the witnesses. Let us not forget that the first appellant sanctified the second appellant, not before two, but before four witnesses : two who had been specially invited, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Hirsh, and two who had come to the scene as unbidden guests, Police Sergeants Katz and Pachter, These two police officers certainly did not infringe the Ban, because they had not come in order to abet an offence - had not, in the language of the Ban, "assumed the function" of witnesses  - but, on the contrary, had come to watch the unusual ceremony with a view to investigation and action by the police. On the other hand, although the two police officers had not been invited, and had not come in order to be witnesses to the sanctification, they became so automatically, because it is the law that "if a man sanctifies a woman in the presence of two persons without having said to them 'you are my witnesses', she is nevertheless sanctified" (Kiddushin 43^a ; Shulhan Aruh, Even Ha-Ezer, 42, 4) ; "even if the witnesses do not intend to be witnesses, but have only come to look on, they become witnesses, and the woman is sanctified" ("Beit Meir", quoted in Pithei Teshuva to Even Ha-Ezer, ibid., subs. 1i).

            It follows that even if we regard Mr. Fisher and Mr. Hirsh as disqualified witnesses by reason of the infringement of the Ban, the validity of sanctification still has some support in its having been "witnessed" - i.e. attended and observed-by the Police Officers Katz and Pachter, and this attendance and observation has been legally and adequately proved in the District Court.

            It might be objected that even Police Officers Katz and Pachter cannot be witnesses to the sanctification, because the disqualified witnesses (Fisher and Hirsh) disqualify the valid witnesses (Katz and Pachter) according to the well-known rule that "where one of them is a relative or disqualified, the testimony of both of them is invalid." The brief and simple answer is ; we are here concerned with the validity of the actual physical witnessing of the sanctification, and not with the acceptability of witnesses who are to testify on it subsequently, and in regard to this actual, physical witnessing - "seeing in itself", in the language of R. Yehuda - the aforementioned rule is quite inappplicable (see R. Yehuda's remarks in Tosefta Makkot 6^a, from the word "Shmuel").

            f) In conclusion, I would point out that the whole idea of the disqualification of witnesses because of a Ban has never gained wide acceptance in rabbinical literature, and that it is very doubtful whether there is still room for it at all in our day, especially in the case of the Ban which - unlike the Salonica Ban of the Rashdam of Modena - has not gained much recognition even in this city. This is what Meirat Einayim on Hoshen Mishpat 34, 5, 10 writes:

            ".... but a person who infringes bans imposed by community regulations should not be disqualified from giving evidence, for in that case not one in a thousand would be qualified."

            If this applied in the days of the author of the Sefer Meirat Einayim, it applies all the more today. That idea of the disqualification of the witnesses is still sometimes resorted to - but even then only as a secondary consideration - where it is a question of permitting the remarriage of a deserted wife, the whereabouts of the husband being unknown, since Rabbis have at all times regarded it as their sacred duty to release such an unhappy woman from the bonds of matrimony and to use, in a matter of this kind, their power to allow rather than their power to forbid. This is evidenced by thousands of responsa releasing such women on the strength of very flimsy suppositions, from a patent desire to grant them relief ; the judges have here, in fact, entered the domain of the legislator.

21. It follows that the first appellant has contracted a marriage with the second appellant by way of "sanctification by something of value", in the presence of competent witnesses, and that by virtue of that act, they have to be regarded as husband and wife. The fact that the husband is, or may possibly be, of priestly stock and that the woman is a divorcee in no way affects the validity of the marriage. Although the prohibition of the marriage of a divorced woman to a man of priestly stock is a disobedience of the law: "Thou shalt not......", a marriage involving the infringement of such laws is nevertheless valid (Kiddushin 68^a, and elsewhere). I will not here express an opinion as to the legal consequences of this prohibited marriage in respect of maintenance, the marriage settlement, the succession of the husband and the like, because there is no claim before us on these points within the framework of this case. What the appellants have claimed is a declaration that they are "married" to each other, that is to say, that he is her legal husband and she his legal wife, and to this declaration they are entitled.

22. I have arrived at this conclusion with considerable reluctance. I frankly admit that my inclination, as a judge and as a man, has been, from beginning to end, not to give official sanction to that private ceremony. Nobody will approve of marriage ceremonies like this and no judge will feel sympathetic towards applications like the present. I have examined very carefully whether there is not some basic flaw in a marriage of this kind, but I have found none. I thought for a moment that it might be possible to invalidate it on the ground that the whole intention of the couple was, not to become married to each other in accordance with Jewish law but, as appears from the sworn declaration quoted in paragraph 2(g) above, to obtain a marriage certificate entitling the "head-of-family" to receive a ration-card, income-tax facilities and other similar paraphanalia. I told myself that the solemnization had been effected not for "sacramental" but for documentary purposes and that there had been no intention of sanctification. But I had eventually to reject all these arguments in favour of validation. For the purpose of sanctification it is the events that matter, "and in matters of sanctification no conjectures and no evidence are admissible to disprove the intention of sanctification." (See R. Moshe Isserlis, Even Ha-Ezer, 42, 1; see also ibid., 4.)

- Moreover, even if we were permitted to use such conjectures and evidence, and thereby - on the well-known principle that there are certain conclusions which a judge must draw from given circumstances even without formal proof - to ascertain the ultimate intention of the couple, those secondary objectives would not in themselves be calculated to invalidate the matrimonial relationship established between them. For in matters of sanctification, it is intended relationship, and not any ulterior motive, that counts (even in the case of the seven women who "take hold of one man, saying, 'We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel : only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach' " (Isaiah IV, 1), and who thus avowedly marry for "nominal" reasons, it is very doubtful whether it would have been possible to permit remarriage on the strength of this solemn declaration). This is illustrated by the great difficulties confronting the rabbinical courts in this country when attempting to dissolve "fictitious" marriages. An ancient precedent is to be found in the Tosefta story (Ketubbot V, 1) of R. Tarphon, a man of priestly stock, who, in a year of dearth, married three hundred women for the sole purpose of enabling them to partake of the priestly dues - which reminds us, if the comparison could be permitted, of the ration-cards of the first appellant.

            The same inclination not to annul a marriage by reason of its having been contracted "fictitiously" (for the purpose of obtaining citizenship, an entry visa or the like) is conspicuous also in the secular jurisprudence of the British Commonwealth as shown, for instance, by the South African judgment of Martens v. Martens (51), quoted with unqualified approval in N. v. H. (34). This principle prevails also in several Central European countries; we know that famous revolutionaries, such as Rosa Luxemburg in Germany in 1898, succeeded in avoiding deportation by means of such fictitious marriages. The reluctance of the legislator and the judge to probe into the purpose of the marriage is thus a feature common to the matrimonial law of a number of legal systems - both religious and secular - and the reason for it is easy to see: intimate matters such as the genuineness of the relationship between spouses are impossible to investigate, and a sensible legislator will not be anxious to prohibit an "evasion of the law" which cannot be prevented. We may here - with a slight change in wording - apply a talmudical dictum Yevamot 65^b) :

            "Just as the legislator is required to legislate reasonably so is he required not to legislate unreasonably. If he does the latter, he will find himself among the 'aiders and abettors' of transgressors."

            In short: I have reviewed every aspect of the case, and have found no ground for the annulment of the sanctification. I therefore consider it my duty as a judge to declare its legal validity. A judge has nothing to go upon but the law, and therefore must not disregard anything he finds therein, whatever the consequences. There is no one more competent in matters of religion and religious law, and no one more jealous of them, than the Chief Rabbis of Israel, and they, too, in a similar case, have declared the validity of a marriage. I am referring to Appeal No. 1/60/706 (22), mentioned in paragraph 19 above. That case, too, concerned a sanctification performed without ten witnesses, without a canopy, without benedictions and without a Rabbi, and there, too, the parties were a man of priestly stock - definitely, not merely possibly, so - and a divorcee. The man was subsequently left by the divorcee and married another woman, lived with her for several years and then died. The two women then began to litigate over the estate. The matter came before the Rabbinical Court of Appeal where the second wife of the deceased appeared as appellant, the first wife as respondent. One of the arguments of the appellant was:

            "...the court (i.e. the court below) should not have entertained the application of the respondent and sanctioned after eighteen years a secret sanctification effected without a canopy, without benedictions, without a Rabbi and without ten witnesses. Such a judgment not only casts a slur on the deceased and his daughter, who is stamped by it as illegitimate, but it is likely to become a very dangerous precedent and to have a deleterious effect on Jewish family life." (ibid., p. 134.)

            This contention of the appellant was dismissed by the learned Rabbis as follows:

            "It is true that in the present case the marriage was forbidden by the Torah, and that both husband and wife infringed a prohibitive law, that is to say that a man of priestly stock shall not "take a woman put away from her husband" (Leviticus XXI, 7), but the court was not for this reason prevented from affirming the validity of that marriage, because a sanctification infringing a prohibitive law is nevertheless valid; on the contrary, the court was in duty bound to define the present personal status of the wife in accordance with her application, notwithstanding that this status is based on a sanctification contrary to the law of the Torah, and regardless of the fact that the husband is no longer alive, for the wife is of course interested even after the death of the husband in the determination of her personal status." (ibid., p. 136.)

            These are most telling remarks, worthy of those who made them. The Rabbis did not refuse to give that widow the relief claimed by her, although she herself, by the very act in question, had by no means behaved in accordance with the law. Just as there is no mercy in the law, so there is no resentment in the law. Nor were the learned Rabbis afraid of the difficulties and dangers to family life suggested by the second wife; because the refusal to adjudicate according to law is in itself an offence, and no one is told, "Do commit an offence, so that you may reap a benefit" (Menahot 48a).

            We, in this court, are even less in a position to withhold our judicial opinion as to the marriage contracted by the first appellant; we must categorically declare its validity.

            In the light of all I have said, I think that the appeal should be allowed and that the appellants should be granted the declaration requested by them, namely, that on December 16, 1952, at Tel Aviv, the first appellant contracted a marriage with the second appellant by way of "sanctification by something of value," and that they are to be regarded as husband and wife as from that date.

SUSSMAN J. In this appeal I have had the advantage of reading the judgments of my learned colleagues, which show that the following three problems arise:

            a) Was the District Court competent to continue dealing with the application of the appellants after the Rabbinical Courts Jurisdiction (Marriage and Divorce) Law, 5713-1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Law") had come into force?

            b) Are the appellants married to each other?

            c) Do considerations of public welfare demand that the court refrain from granting the appellants the relief which they claim?

2. As for the first problem: the question arises whether s. 1 of the said Law is a purely procedural provision for seeing that a person has no vested right in procedure, a provision introducing a change in procedure applies also to proceedings which began before that provision came into force. Thus, the provisions of the said Law concerning jurisdiction do not apply to the present case unless they are procedural; if they are substantive, the application of the appellants must be determined according to the rules which obtained before the said Law came into force.

            I do not think that section 14 of the Interpretation Ordinance helps the appellants; section 17(2)(e) of that Ordinance refers to proceedings for the enforcement of a right arising from a Law which has been repealed; such a right is susceptible of enforcement even after the Law from which it arises has been repealed, since a new Law does not, as a rule, detract from a substantive right a person has acquired. As for rules of procedure, however, it is generally agreed that there can be no vested right in them. As to this point, I have nothing to add to the remarks made by my esteemed colleague, Justice Cheshin, in paragraph 12 of his judgment.

            On the other hand, I think that it would be unrealistic to say that the extension of the jurisdiction of the Rabbinical Courts, and the curtailment of the jurisdiction of the civil courts, by the provisions of the said Law represent a change in procedure only. In paragraph 12 of his judgment Justice Silberg points to the fact that jurisdictional change has affected in a substantive manner the validity of marriage : where a couple have married in a foreign country before a civil official, in accordance with the laws of that country, a civil court in Israel will recognise the marriage, but a Rabbinical court will regard it as null - by reason of the "universal" effect of Jewish law, which does not require or invoke the rules of international law designed to settle conflicts between the legal systems of different countries; it makes no difference that a question of private international law did not arise in the present case; the fact that had such a question arisen the Rabbinical court would not have decided it in the same way as a civil court is sufficient to convince me that the significance of the change resulting from the provisions of the said Law with regard to the powers of the courts is not purely procedural.

            Moreover, the technique applied by the legislator is calculated to support my conclusion. Section 1 of the said Law vests the Rabibinical court with exclusive jurisdiction in matters of "marriage and divorce of Jews in Israel, being nationals or residents of the State". The legislator did not specify according to what law the Rabbinical courts were to deal with those matters. But it is beyond doubt that it intended not only to transfer jurisdiction from the civil court to the religious court (in so far as it had previously been vested in the former), but also to make Jewish law applicable to those matters from the substantive aspect. This meant, in so far as jurisdiction in matters of the personal status of foreigners was transferred to the Rabbinical courts, the repeal of the rule embodied in Article 64 of the Palestine Order in Council, which prescribes the application of the national law of the persons concerned. By way of a change of jurisdiction the legislator introduced, in effect, a change in the substantive rights of the parties.

            It follows that, even if the power of the District Court to deal with an application like the one before us was withdrawn, its power to continue dealing with and determine such proceedings has not been affected.

3. The marriage contracted in this case is valid according to Jewish law in spite of the Biblical prohibition.

4. There remains the third problem on which, again to my regret the views of my learned colleagues are divided.

            I am not prepared to dispute the principle enunciated by Justice Cheshin, namely, that, in considering whether or not to grant declaratory relief, the court may take into account the behaviour of the parties, as reflected in the actions which constitute the basis for their application to the court. However, even if we take this factor into account, there is still an important consideration which, in my opinion, tips the scales in favour of the appellants: the Biblical prohibition infringed by the appellants is a lex imperfecta, since no sanction is attached to it, and a marriage contracted in disregard of it is nevertheless valid. In fact, as hinted by my colleagues, should the appellants apply to a Rabbinical court, the latter will recognise the validity of the marriage (see Stark v. Chief Execution Officer (6)) and grant the declaration requested. So what point would there be in a civil court acting otherwise? It seems to me that in a case like the present the need to remove doubts as to the personal status of the appellants (and to remove such doubts is the purpose of the declaration prayed for) is a more weighty consideration than the behaviour of the parties.

5. In conclusion, I wish to add one remark. My learned colleagues have already expressed their distaste for the irregularity of a secret marriage. I share this feeling, but would not be easy in my mind unless I called attention to the situation which in my opinion has given rise to that marriage. Persons of religious views will of their own accord avoid infringing religious prohibitions and not take the course the parties in this case have taken. However, those who are not religious have no opportunity in this country of contracting a marriage by way of a civil ceremony, under the auspices of the State authorities. There is, in my opinion, no better way to prevent the recurrence of what happened in this case than the enactment of a civil marriage Law, which will enable those who do not wish to have a religious marriage ceremony to undergo a civil marriage. I agree that the appeal be allowed and the appellants granted the declaration sought.

CHESHIN J. This is an appeal against a judgment of the District Court of Tel Aviv dismissing a claim for an order declaring that a sanctification of the second appellant (a divorced woman) to the first appellant (a man of a priestly family) solemnized by a lawyer in his office and not in the presence of ten persons, is a valid and binding sanctification according to Jewish law.

2. I must confess that had the question of the validity of the sanctification been the only question before me, I would not have hesitated for one moment to express my full concurrence in the exceptionally clear and well-reasoned judgment of my colleague, Silberg J., without adding one word to it. At the very outset, before entering on the merits, however, we are faced with two important and weighty questions to which we must find an answer and, to my great regret, I differ from the opinions of my learned colleagues in regard to both of these questions. The first question relates to the jurisdiction of the District Court, and the second question relates to the discretion of the Court to grant the declaratory order sought. I shall deal with these questions one by one.

3. In regard to jurisdiction, the claim was brought at the beginning of 1953, and it is not disputed that the District Court was at that time competent to deal with it. In the course of the proceedings, however, and before judgment was pronounced, the Rabbinical Courts Jurisdiction (Marriage and Divorce) Law, 1953, which introduced a number of important changes in the legal position which previously existed in the field of personal status, was passed. Section 1 of that Law provides:

            "Matters of marriage and divorce of Jews in Israel, being nationals or residents of the State, shall be under , the exclusive jurisdiction of Rabbinical Courts"

            Since it is not disputed that both the appellants in this case are nationals and residents of Israel, it is clear that had they brought their claim to-day, they would have had to lodge it in the Rabbinical Courts. The question therefore is whether, and to what extent the jurisdiction of the District Court to continue to hear the claim in question, which was pending before it at the time the new Law was enacted, was affected by that Law.

4. No authority dealing with the interpretation of statutes is necessary for the proposition that a new Law is presumed not to affect vested rights in any way, and that it does not operate to annul, vary, replace, derogate from or add to such rights, unless the legislature has disclosed its intention of doing so in unambiguous terms. Every statute, therefore, is deemed to be prospective, that is to say, to apply to the future, and not retrospective, that is to say, to apply to the past. The direct logical result of that interpretation is that the provisions of a Law which are repealed by a later Law remain in force and fully operative in regard to rights acquired by a person before such repeal, whether the repeal was prior to the presentation to court by such person of a claim to his rights, or whether it was subsequent to such claim but before the case was decided. My colleague, Silberg J., cited a number of authorities to this effect, and I do not intend to cite them here a second time. I shall merely add one or two cases in order to support this view.

            In Leeds and County Bank v. Walker (35), Denman J. said, at page 91:

            "...in the absence of anything in the Act to show that it is to have a retrospective operation, it cannot be so construed as to have the effect of altering the law applicable to the note in question as it existed in 1880, and down to the time when the present action was brought..."

            In Maxwell's work on the Interpretation of Statutes (9th ed.) p. 229, it is mid (as quoted in the judgment of Evershed M.R. in Hutchinson v. Jauncey (28)):

            "In general, when the law is altered during the pendency of an action, the rights of the parties are decided according to the law as it existed when the action was begun, unless the new statute shows a clear intention to vary such rights."

            The very same principle is laid down in section 17(2) (c) of the (Palestine) Interpretation Ordinance, 1945, which provides that:

            "Where any enactment repeals any law, such repeal shall not... affect any right, privilege, obligation, or liability, acquired, accrued, or incurred, under any law so repealed."

            A distinction, however, must be drawn - and all judges and commentators, without exception, are in agreement with such a distinction  - between substantive rights and rules of procedure. It is agreed by all that no one acquires a vested right in rules of procedure, and that a litigant will not be heard to say: my claim must be determined in accordance with the procedure which existed at the time that I acquired my rights or at the time that I filed my claim, and new rules of procedure which were framed thereafter do not apply to it. A number of authorities on this point, too, were cited by my colleague, Silberg J., and I shall content myself with adding only a few more.

In Gardner v. Lucas (36), Lord Blackburn said, at p. 603:

            "...I think it is perfectly settled that if the Legislature intended to frame a new procedure, that instead of proceeding in this form or that, you should proceed in another and a different way; clearly there bygone transactions are to be sued for and enforced according to the new form of procedure. Alterations in the form of procedure are always retrospective, unless there is some good reason or other why they should not be. Then, again, I think that where alterations are made in matters of evidence... those are retrospective, whether civil or criminal."

            Even before this, in Kimbray v. Draper (37), Blackburn J. had said, (at p. 163) that:

            "When the effect of an enactment is to take away a right, prima facie it does not apply to existing rights; but where it deals with procedure only, prima facie it applies

to all actions pending as well as future."

6. This same principle was first fully adumbrated and explained in Wright v. Hale (38), which is regarded as the leading authority. In that case Pollock C.B. said, at p. 445 :

            "There is a considerable difference between such laws as affect vested rights and those which only affect the proceedings or practice of the Courts ...If therefore a Statute were to say: 'In questions which depend an mere judgment ...no suitor shall be allowed to call more than three witnesses', that enactment would apply to all actions, whether pending at the time it was passed or to be brought afterwards; it would be an enactment relating to practice, and a suitor could not say: 'I have a right to call as many witnesses to that subject as I please, and will therefore call ten surveyors, ten brokers, ten surgeons, etc. A matter of that sort cannot be called a right, and I think, when a statute merely alters the course of procedure in a cause, and does not especially say that its provisions shall not apply to any action commenced before it came into operation... its provisions will apply to the procedure in such actions."

7. This principle too - namely, the principle relating to matters of procedure - was laid down in numerous English cases which are followed by the courts until today. My attention has not been directed to even one judgment in which judges have deviated from this principle in the slightest degree. Matters of procedure are decided according to the existing law, and this rule also applies to claims which are pending. There is one exception to this rule, and that is the right to appeal in an existing claim.

            "To deprive a suitor in a pending action of an appeal to a superior tribunal which belonged to him as of right is a very different thing from regulating procedure".

says Lord MacNaghten in the case of The Colonial Sugar Refining Co. v. Irving (30) (see also Craies on Statute Law, 5th Ed., p. 371).

8. In connection with statutes, moreover, which are directed towards divesting a court of its jurisdiction to deal with a particular category of claims, it would appear that opinions in England changed somewhat in later years on the question of the application of such statutes to claims which are pending. Thus, for example, in re Joseph Suche and Co. (27), it was said by Jessel M.R. that:

            "it is a general rule that when the Legislature alters the rights of parties by taking away or conferring any right of action, its enactments, unless in express terms they apply to pending actions, do not affect them."

            But the observations made in Hutchinson's case (28), and the rules laid down in that case, deviated from the principle stated. In that case Evershed M.R. said at p. 579:

            "Having examined the many cases cited for the landlord, I doubt whether the principle ought to be expressed in quite such precise language as Jessel M.R. used in re Joseph Suche & Co. Ltd. (27). In other words, it seems to me that, if the necessary intendment of the act is to affect pending causes of action then this Court will give effect to the intention of the Legislature even though there is no express reference to pending actions."

            It follows that in matters of procedure and jurisdiction, even in regard to claims which are pending, we are to be guided not only by the express language of the legislature, but also by the intention to be gathered from that language.

9. The great importance for our purposes of Hutchinson's case (28), and the remarks of Evershed M.R. which I have cited, lie in the fact that that case dealt with a new law which divested a court of its jurisdiction to deal with a particular class of claims and its effect upon a claim which had been brought before that law came into force. The court reached the conclusion that by virtue of the new law, it had been divested of jurisdiction to deal with a claim which had already been filed, but had not yet been determined. Effect was thus given - though this was not expressly stated - to what had already been decided in England, namely, that a statute which introduces a change in the jurisdiction of a court also applies to claims which are pending. (See, for example, Warne v. Beresford (39), the Ironsides' case (40), and the observations of Maxwell, Interpretation of Statutes, 9th edition, p. 233 on Warne's case (39).)

10. I also find some support for this principle in Hamden v. Nabus (7). The facts of that case were as follows. After the constitution of the Land Courts in this country, a certain land case was brought before the Land Courts in Sh'khem. When it became known to the Court however, that the same case had previously been brought before the Sharia Court 1⁾ and had not been concluded, the Court dismissed the claim, holding that the Sharia Court and that court alone, was competent to deal with claims that were pending before it. The Appeal Court rejected this opinion, and said:

            "By the Proclamation of 1918 all jurisdiction over cases concerning ownership of land was taken from the Sharia Court... Instead, a jurisdiction has been given to the Land Courts by the Land Courts Ordinance, 1921. Whether or not a case was pending in the Sharia Courts at the date of the Proclamation, the Courts were prohibited from giving any judgment deciding the ownership of land... The judgment of the Land Court must be set aside and the case heard."

            It must be noted that the Proclamation of 1918 (that is the Proclamation of June 24, 1918), entitled "Constitution of Courts", (Bentwich, Legislation of Palestine, 1918-1925, Vol. I, p. 605), did not expressly and permanently abolish the jurisdiction of the Sharia Court to deal with land cases, though it did direct - in section 23 - that "until further notice the Court shall not give any judgment decided the ownership of land ..."

            It was not therefore, the intention of the Proclamation permanently to deprive the courts - including the Sharia Courts - of the jurisdiction to deal with land matters, nor to lay down that cases pending before those courts should be transferred to courts other than those which existed or which would be established in the future, as it did provide, for example, in section 25 of that Proclamation. The intention of the Proclamation was merely to suspend the jurisdiction of the court to give judgments in land matters for an unspecified period, that is to say, until the giving of further notice. That additional notice was not given; the jurisdiction of those courts was not explicitly terminated, and no direction was given as to the fate of cases which were pending before them. Instead of this a new Ordinance, the Land Courts Ordinance, 1921, was enacted, and that Ordinance, too, did not provide that cases which had begun in other courts should be transferred to the Land Courts, or be disposed of in some other way. Nevertheless, it was held by the Court of Appeal in Hamdan's case (7), that the jurisdiction to deal with those cases which were pending before other courts had been conferred upon the Land Courts which were established for the first time by the new Ordinance. It follows that a case which has been filed in a competent court, and is pending before that court at a time when jurisdiction to deal with cases of that kind is conferred upon another court, must be dealt with in such other court, although the jurisdiction of the court in which the claim was first filed has not been taken away from it, and has not been clearly terminated. And why is this so? The reason, in my opinion, is that a person has no vested right in rules of procedure. From the time, therefore, that a new law was passed conferring jurisdiction upon special courts, the jurisdiction of the existing courts came to an end in respect of pending claims as well, and such claims, when brought before the special courts, cannot be said to be pending in two courts at one and the same time, as the Land Court thought was the position in Hamdan's case (7).

11. It has been said that section 17(2)(e) of the Interpretation Ordinance is designed to prevent any legal proceedings which have commenced from being affected. What is referred to, however, are legal proceedings "in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation" and so forth, as stated in subsection (c), and the meaning of the provision is that where a right or obligation, etc., has been changed, such change shall not affect any legal proceedings which have already begun in connection with such right or obligation.

            I would mention here, in passing, that section 17 of the Interpretation Ordinance is substantially similar to section 38 of the English Interpretation Act, 1889, and it has already been laid down more than once that the rights spoken of in section 38 are material rights, personal rights, and not abstract rights, rights in matters of procedure and other rights of that kind (see, for example, Gell v. White (41)).

12. Let us now return and enquire what was the purpose of the Rabbinical Courts Jurisdiction (Marriage and Divorce) Law, 1953. Was its purpose to change vested material rights, or was it to introduce a new procedure and different jurisdiction? It should be pointed out at once that the name of the Law indicates its content. This is a law relating to jurisdiction. Its whole purpose is to define the limits of jurisdiction of the Rabbinical Courts. Section 1, which is the most important section for our purposes, lays it down that: "matters of marriage and divorce of Jews in Israel, being nationals or residents of the State, shall be under the exclusive jurisdiction of Rabbinical Courts."

            Not a single word in this section is designed to affect in the slightest degree any substantive rights of the individual, to vary them, change them, or derogate from them. The section deals with the question of the jurisdiction of the courts alone, and details those matters which shall henceforth fall within the jurisdiction of the Rabbinical Courts. From the historical point of view the real meaning of this section, and the background of the law as a whole, are well known. It may be mentioned in parenthesis that the legislature itself has pointed out the purpose which the law was intended to achieve. In the explanatory note to the proposed law (see Proposed Laws, No. 163, of May 12, 1953), it is said:

            "The proposed Law removes the restriction contained in the Mandatory Legislation... which established the jurisdiction of the Rabbinical Courts only in respect of persons who were 'members of the Jewish Community', that is to say, who were registered in the Register of the 'Knesset Yisrael', and who were not foreign nationals."

            I do not intend to say that we are entitled to interpret the Statute in the light of the explanatory note of the legislature to the proposed Law. That explanation, nevertheless, throws light upon the legislative background, and from this point of view is likely to give additional support to the interpretation which follows in any case from the law itself. Were it said in the Law, for example, that the marriage of a person of priestly family and a divorced woman will henceforth be void, or that a religious marriage which was not celebrated in the presence of ten persons, shall be deemed not to have been celebrated at all, there would be room for the argument in each of these cases that vested rights of the applicant and others in a similar position had been affected, and that since the legislature did not expressly reveal its intention that the Law should act with retrospective effect, it has no effect upon claims which were pending in the civil courts at the time that the Law came into force.

            That was in fact the basis of the decision of the High Court of Justice in Babayofff v. Chief Execution Officer (8). That was a case of maintenance which had been dealt with in the Rabbinical Court. At the time the claim was filed the parties were thought to be Palestinian nationals, and the Rabbinical Courts were therefore competent to deal with the case. In the course of the proceedings the law was changed, and persons of the class to which the parties belonged were accorded the status of foreign nationals. The effect of this change in the law, therefore, was to deprive the parties of their status as Palestinian nationals, that is to say, to change them from Palestinian nationals to foreign nationals. In these circumstances it was held by the High Court of Justice that the new Law was not retroactive, and that it therefore had no effect upon the proceedings that were pending. The position is entirely different in a law such as the one we are considering, in that that Law does not deal at all with the rights and status of the litigants, but only with the jurisdiction of the court. Nothing whatever is said in the Law about the personal rights of individuals. The whole object of the Law is to introduce a procedural change. Before the Law was passed, the appellants could have brought their claim before the civil courts of the State. After the enactment of the Law they, and persons in the same situation, have to bring their claims before the Rabbinical Courts of the State. Where, therefore, is the substantive personal right which has been affected? What has happened is that the forum has been changed; there has been in these circumstances nochange in a right or deprivation of a right.

13. It has been submitted that a statute which transfers jurisdiction from one court to another cannot affect pending claims. As authority for this proposition the case of Nassar v. Attorney-General (2) was cited. In that case a man had been convicted by a civil court, and it was argued on appeal that that court had been deprived of jurisdiction in the course of the proceedings on the charge, since military courts had been established after the appellant had been charged but before he had been convicted, and jurisdiction to deal with the offence of the type of which the appellant had been convicted, had been conferred upon the military court. This submission was not accepted by the court which contented itself with the following laconic judgment: "In our view, having regard to section 5 of the Interpretation Ordinance, the accused was properly tried by the civil court."

            This was the sole ground upon which the court based its decision. We have already seen, however, that the court held otherwise in Hamdan's case (7), and it seems to me, moreover, with all respect that the court fell into error in Nassar's case (2). At that time the Interpretation Ordinance, 1929 ( Drayton, Cap. 69), was in force, and section 5(1)(e) of that Ordinance - which is fundamentally similar to section 17(2)(e) of the Interpretation Ordinance of 1945 - provided that the repeal of an Ordinance shall not affect "any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, etc." But we have already seen that that 'right' which is spoken of here is the right mentioned above in section 5(1)(c) - which is identical with section 17(2)(c) of the Ordinance of 1945 - and the meaning of that right is a personal, substantive right acquired by a person, and not some abstract advantage gained from the rules of procedure. The whole purpose of section 5 was to prevent a substantive right from being affected by the Law which was repealed,and not the judicial procedure itself.

            14. It has also been submitted that there is not in this case a change of the jurisdiction of the courts alone, but also a material change in substantive law and the application of the law. I do not accept this submission. The appellants applied to the District Court and sought a declaration in regard to their personal status. It is not disputed that their status is to be determined according to Jewish law. What then is the difference between the District Court and the Rabbinical Court? Both courts will have to deal with the matter within the same framework of substantive law, while the Religious Court has the advantage that it is also competent to decide questions of Jewish law, on which some of the greatest of the rabbis of Israel have differed. In what respect then can the appellants be aggrieved if they must now seek their remedy in the Rabbinical Courts?

 15. The doors of the Religious Courts, moreover, are wide open before them. And they may also have resort to legal precedents. I refer to the case of A. v. B. (22). In that case a Rabbinical Court was asked at the outset to decide the question of the validity of a sanctification which had been performed between a member of a priestly family and a divorced woman, before two witnesses alone, without ten persons being present, and without the canopy and the recitation of the traditional blessings. The Rabbinical Court pronounced the marriage valid. In the judgment, on appeal, of the Supreme Rabbinical Court of Appeals it is said, inter alia:

"The Supreme Court holds that the court of first instance was correct in law in accepting the evidence of the witnesses in regard to the marriage of the respondent and the deceased; although this marriage was forbidden by the Bible, being a marriage of a divorced woman to a member of a priestly family, nevertheless the marriage was valid, and made the woman the wife of her husband all the days of her life, and she is regarded as the widow of the deceased after his death." (Ibid., p. 135.)

            And two important principles - of those relevant to the matter before us - were laid down in that case by the Rabbinical Court of Appeals. First, "the right of any person interested to request the Court to determine his personal status", and secondly, "a marriage without a canopy and the seven blessings, without the presence of ten Jews and without the drawing up of the marriage contract - although such a marriage is a disgraceful mode of procedure contrary to the teachings of the scholars and the accepted custom in Israel - such a marriage, despite the above defects, is valid." (Ibid., p. 139.)

            From the point of view of its jurisdiction the Rabbinical Court accordingly reached the conclusion that it was "obliged to entertain the application and give its decision in accordance with the results of its consideration and deliberations" (ibid. p. 135-136), and, as I have said, in regard to the merits of the case, held the marriage to be valid. In which respects, therefore, will the rights of the appellants be adversely affected if it be held that the law in question operates with retrospective effect, and that it is to the Religious Courts that they must now present their claim? The opposite is the case I have great doubts whether a civil court is obliged to entertain the case of the appellants, not from the point of view of lack of jurisdiction alone, but also from the point of view of discretion - an aspect which is not taken into account in the Rabbinical Courts, as we have seen above - but I shall return to deal with this question later at greater length.

16. It has been said that the law of evidence in a Rabbinical Court is not the same as the law of evidence, and the method of assessing evidence, in a civil court, and it has also been said that the system of justice in the two sets of courts cannot be compared, and that the principles of private international law will not be accorded proper recognition in the Rabbinical Courts. We are asked to conclude from these considerations that the transfer of the jurisdiction from the ordinary court to the Rabbinical Court is not a matter of procedure alone, but involves a fundamental change of material rights. There are a number of replies to this submission. In the first place, in regard to the law of evidence and the assessment of the sworn statements of witnesses, these are matters relating to the procedure of the courts, and we have already said that a person has no vested rights in matters of this kind. Secondly, in regard to private international law, no question has arisen in the present case which calls for investigation or clarification according to the principles of private international law, and this is neither the time nor the place for a consideration of this question. Thirdly, it is true that the Rabbinical Courts do not regard themselves as bound by the principles of private international law, but that is no proof that those courts will never in any case be prepared to follow those principles, and in a proper case will pay no attention to them. And finally, even if we must regard the new law as altering material rights upon the single ground that the Rabbinical Courts do not recognise the principles of private international law, what is the distinction between a case that is pending - such as the case before us - and a case which has not yet been brought? A case brought from now onwards in the Rabbinical Courts will not be subject there to the principles of private international law, although the marriage was celebrated before the new Law came into force. This conclusion, as it seems to me, is plainly inconsistent with the presumption - which is not disputed  - that also in cases such as that before us jurisdiction will henceforth be in the hands of the Rabbinical Courts.

17. In short, it is my opinion that it was not the intention of the new Law - the Law of Marriage and Divorce - to impair any material right of the appellants, and persons similarly placed. Section 1 merely lays down which court is competent to deal with matters of marriage and divorce relating to Jews of the class of the appellants. It follows that it merely regulates matters of procedure and nothing more. In the leading case, Wright v. Hale (38). which I have already mentioned,. it was held by Channell B. that:

"Where the giving to a statute a retrospective operation would be to divest a right to put an end to an action by plea or such like, the Court should clearly see that the Legislature intended such a retrospective operation; that rule does not apply where a statute only relates to procedure or practice."

            The Law of Marriage and Divorce deprived no one of his right of action. Nor did it impair any other substantive right. It was de­signed to change the procedure which was previously employed in regard to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State to deal with matters of marriage and divorce of particular classes of persons. Section 1 of the Law does not provide that "claims in regard to marriage, etc. shall be brought only in the Rabbinical Courts". Had the law laid this down, I would have said that "shall not be brought" ex­cludes cases which have already been brought. The Law lays down another and different provision, namely, that from the day the law comes into force those matters shall be dealt with in the Rabbinical Courts. In other words, no other court will in the future be com­petent to hear and decide such matters. This intention on the part of the legislature is, in my opinion, clear, and it is therefore right that this procedural provision should apply not only to claims which will be brought in the future, but also to claims which had already been brought and were pending at the time that the Law came into force, since the civil courts have been deprived of jurisdiction to give a decision in such matters.

18. The dicta of Dunkelblum J. in Kwatinski v. District Com­missioner (20) do not, in my view, contradict what I have said above, and this for two reasons. In the first place, the law which was being considered in that case by Dunkelblum J. dealt with the material rights of the individual, and not merely with questions of procedure. Secondly, the Law there dealt with repealed older Laws, and since the legislature "found it desirable to create unity in the position of various persons", (to quote the words of the judgment in that case) it enacted special interim provisions in order to preserve the rights which were vested in such persons. Completely different is the case of a law which does not expressly repeal earlier laws, but which lays down provisions the purpose of which is merely to transfer the jurisdiction of one court to another court.

19. For these reasons it seems to me that the learned judge in the District Court was right in his conclusion - shortly expressed - that he had no jurisdiction to deal with the case. I am not sure that it was necessary for him to dismiss the claim completely - as he did - for this reason: it seems to me that in the circumstances, since the Rabbinical Courts are also included within the framework of the courts of the country, he could have transferred the case to the local Rabbinical Courts for consideration, without the appellant being compelled to restart proceedings.

20. In view of my conclusion as stated above, according to which the District Court is deprived of jurisdiction to deal with the matter, there is no need for me to consider the other questions which have arisen in this appeal. However, since my opinion is a dissenting opinion, I shall add some dicta on one further question, namely, whether in the circumstances of the case before us the court should have exercised its discretion in favour of the appellants.

21. The relief claimed is a declaration that the sanctification by which the first applicant - a person of a priestly family - married the second applicant - a divorcee - was valid; and that the applicants are married to each other according to Jewish religious law. A District Court is competent to grant relief of this kind by virtue of Rule 52(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 1938, which provides that:

            "No action shall fail on the grounds that the relief claimed is declaratory only."

            The rule referred to does not differ in principle - though it is very much more limited in scope - from Rule 5 of Order 25 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Judicature in England. This last mentioned rule has been the subject of much discussion from the very day of its coming into force - in the year 1883 - and a number of basic principles in regard to its application have been laid down for the guidance of the courts. These principles may assist us in solving the question whether the circumstances of the case before us justify the granting of the declaratory order sought or not before examining those principles, however, it will be proper to point out very shortly the nature and origin of an order declaring rights.

            The remedy in question developed in three stages. Before 1852 the Courts of Equity in England were not accustomed to grant declarations of rights, save as relief which was incidental to the principal remedy sought in the claim. This does not mean that they did not regard themselves as competent to grant such orders. There is no doubt that they were competent, but they saw no necessity to exercise that power since they did not regard the grant of declaratory orders alone as an appropriate solution for the problems which were brought before them. In order to amend this custom, which was accepted in the Courts of Chancery, Section 50 of the Chancery Procedure Amendment Act, 1852, was passed. This section laid down that Courts of Equity would be entitled to grant orders declaring rights, although no additional principal remedy had been sought in the body of the claim, and no such remedy was granted by the courts. This second stage, however, did not see the complete solution of the difficulty, since according to the interpretation given to Section 50 by the courts, declaratory orders would not be given save where the court was also competent to grant the principal remedy, although such remedy was not claimed by the plaintiff. This state of affairs continued until 1883, in which year Rule 5 of Order 25 - that is the third stage in the development - was made, which empowered the court to give Declaratory Orders whether a remedy ancillary to such relief was claimed, or not. (On this point see the judgment of Bankes L.J. in the Guaranty Trust Co. v. Hannay (31).)

22. In the Rules of Procedure which we are accustomed to follow, the provision parallel to Order 25, Rule 5, is Rule 52(4), although, as I have said, our Rule is very much more restricted than the English rule from which it was taken ; and there is room for the submission that our rule introduced to our law only the second stage of the development which I have described, and that we have not yet reached the third stage of that development. I make no comment on this submission, because it was not argued before us. One thing is clear, however, from all that I have said, and is not disputed: the source of a declaratory judgment is to be found in the Courts of Equity. Since that is so, it seems to me that it would not be proper to grant such an order without paying due regard to the accepted principles of equity.

23. Let us now deal with some of the judgments of the English courts - both superior and inferior courts - on the nature, scope and content of a claim for a declaratory order made under Order 25, Rule 5, on the measure of usefulness of such an order, and on the duty of care cast upon the courts before granting such an order.

            In the Grand Junction Waterworks Co. v. Hampton Urban District  Council (42), Stirling J. said (at pp. 345, 346) :

            "...When the court is simply asked to make a declaration of right, without giving any consequential relief, the court ought to be extremely cautious in making such a declaration, and ought not to do it in the absence of any very special circumstances."

            And in Dyson v. Attorney-General (43), Cozens-Hardy M.R. said (at p. 417):

            "The Court is not bound to make a mere declaratory judgment, and in the exercise of its discretion will have regard to all the circumstances of the case. I can, however, conceive many cases in which a declaratory judgment may be highly convenient..."

            And in Burghes v. Attorney-General (44), Warrington J. said (at p. 156) :

            "But the jurisdiction (to give a judgment declaratory of rights under Order 25, Rule 5) is discretionary, and should be exercised with great care and after due regard to all the circumstances of the case."

            A judgment more to the point in regard to the restrictions imposed upon the Court in considering the issue of a declaratory judgment, was given by Bankes L.J. in the leading case of Guaranty Trust (31), which we have already mentioned. In that case the learned Lord Justice said (at p. 572):

            "There is, however, one limitation which must always be attached to it (the relief claimed), that is to say, the relief claimed must be something which it would be unlawful or unconstitutional or inequitable for the Court to grant or contrary to the accepted principles upon which the Court exercises its jurisdiction. Subject to that limitation I see nothing to fetter the discretion of the Court in exercising a jurisdiction under the rule to grant relief ..."

            In Russian Commercial Bank v. British Bank (45), Lord Dunedin, in delivering one of the majority decisions, after praising the correctness of the test applied by the Courts of Scotland when requested to give an order declaratory of rights, said:

            "The question must be a real and not a theoretical question; the person raising it must have a real interest to raise it ; he must be able to secure a proper contradictor, that is to say, someone presently existing who has a true interest to oppose the declaration sought."

            And Lord Wrenbury, expressing a dissenting opinion in the same case, said (at p. 461) :

"...the authorities are numerous that the discretion of the Court to make a declaration..... is to be most carefully and jealously exercised. The present case is so extreme that if the discretion is to be exercised in favour of entertaining an action for a declaration without relief in this case, I cannot at the moment picture any state of facts in which the court might not exercise its discretion in that direction ...."

In Gray v. Spyer (46), Lord Sterndale M.R. said (at p. 27) that

            ".... claims for declaration should be carefully watched. Properly used they are very useful ; improperly used, they almost amount to a nuisance."

In Thomas v. Attorney-General (47), Farwell J. said (at p. 313) :

            "That power given to the court to make declaratory judgments is purely discretionary and the court is not bound to entertain such an application except in a proper case."

            And finally, in Har-Shefi v. Har-Shefi (48), Singleton, L.J said (at p. 786):

"... any such claim (for the giving of a declaration) will be carefully watched. The Court will not grant a declaration in the air."

24.       The courts of this country have in general followed English precedent, and have defined the power to grant an order declaring rights in the light of the interpretations given to Rule 5 of Order 25 by the English courts. I shall cite, for example, the opinion of Windham J. , as quoted in Nathaniel v. Cohen (10), a judgment which was overruled on appeal on another point. And this is what Windham J. said (at p. 697 ibid.):

            " ... the court will with the greatest caution and reluctance give a declaratory judgment in vacuo where no consequential relief is prayed for and where at the same time, such consequential relief ... lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of some other tribunal."

            The same applies to Levin v. Local Council, Ramat Gan (15), in which Judge Kassan said, at p. 298, that:

"It has already been held by the court... nor is the point in dispute - that the court is entitled, by virtue of Rule 52(a) (sic.) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 1938, to issue a declaratory judgment even if it is not asked to grant relief ancillary to the main relief sought... but the question whether or not a declaratory judgment should be given is one within the discretion of the court, which is required to act with the utmost care and circumspection."

25. To sum up then, the position may be stated very shortly in these terms: The court will not as a rule refuse to give a declaratory judgment where there exists a dispute between the parties and one of them seeks advice and guidance in regard to his legal rights so that he may know which path to follow, even though he does not at the same time also seek relief which is ancillary to such a declaration. The court, however, will examine an application of this kind with the closest scrutiny, and will not grant the application save after having weighed all the circumstances of the case - only then will it decide in favour of the plaintiff.

26. No general principles have been laid down in the decided cases under which the court is to weigh the circumstances of the case brought before it. In any event, the investigation of such principles has not been exhausted, and it would seem that each case is to be decided according to its own particular facts. We have already seen the test suggested by Lord Dunedin in the Russian Commercial Bank case (45). This test was adopted by Bourke J. in Ossorguine's case (14). As against this, we find that different and additional considerations have been relied upon in other judgments. I shall not deal with them all, but with only a number of them.

In Roesin v. Attorney-General (49), it was held that a foreign national who resided in England, and had received no notice from the authorities of their intention to discriminate against him in regard to his duty of military service, in favour of other foreign nationals residing temporarily in England, was abusing the power of the court in applying for an order declaring that he was a national of a particular state.

            In the Grand Junction Waterworks case (42), which has already been referred to above, it was held that where an alternative remedy exists, a declaratory judgment will not be given. This principle was also laid down in the Municipal Council of Jerusalem case (9), and was even extended to some extent in that case (see p. 510).

27. I have not found any judgment which deals directly with the question whether the behaviour of the applicant for a declaration - that is to say, his behaviour before he came to court, whether his hands were clean, whether his conscience was clear, and so forth - is one of the circumstances which the court is required to weigh in dealing with the application. However, even though I have found no proof of this, I have found a reference to this question. It appears from Nathaniel's case (10), that the Appeal Court, in confirming the decision of the lower court to dismiss the application for a declaratory  order, did not disregard the behaviour of the applicant for such an order (see, particularly, the dicta on p. 320). And in an American case (see Harril v. American Home Mortgage Co. (5)), it was held that a mortgagor was not entitled to an order declaring promissory notes and the trust deed void, "without doing equity by repaying or offering to repay money borrowed on the security thereof."

28. It is not surprising that the courts have not been required to lay down a principle in connection with this serious question, for what kind of applicant turns to the court for a declaration ? I would say that the usual applicants are persons who, by reason of negotiations which they have conducted with others in good faith, are puzzled as to their rights. They ask themselves what, indeed, are the obligations into which they have entered and to what rights they are entitled from the other party. Against them stand litigants who submit legal submissions to deprive them of their rights. The doors of the courts are open before applicants such as these, subject to the restrictions which we have seen above. It is very rare that persons will knowingly - and, I would say, deliberately - place themselves in a position of embarrassment and thereafter approach the court and request an order declaring their rights and their legal status. It may be that this is the reason for the dearth of judgments on this point. It is my feeling, however - and I cannot rid myself of this impression - that the court, in considering all the circumstances of the case before it, particularly as we are dealing with relief which originated in the Courts of Equity, cannot, and should not, disregard the behaviour of an applicant and the background of his actions which, he submits, have created the rights in respect of which he seeks an authoritative declaration from the court.

29. How did the appellants behave? The facts are clear, and there is no need to relate them again except in a very abbreviated form. The first appellant is a man of priestly family - or a person in respect of whom there is a doubt whether or not he is of such a family - and the second appellant is a divorced woman. The first appellant proposed marriage to the second appellant, who agreed. No Rabbi, however, could be found in Israel who was prepared to perform the ceremony of marriage according to Jewish religious rites, by reason of the Biblical prohibition (Leviticus XXI, 7) "..... neither shall he take a woman put away from her husband". The parties then approached the advocate, David Ganor, who represents them and who has submitted his contentions on their behalf in these proceedings. He conducted an "unofficial" wedding ceremony for the appellants in his office, in the presence of only two witnesses who had been specially invited for the occasion, and in the presence of two constables who came as uninvited guests in order to warn those participating in the marriage farce that their action was illegal. All those present knew, of course, that the celebration was irregular, and had not been performed in accordance with the usual and accepted manner between bride and groom. Mr. Ganor, however, who described himself as one who has completed courses in an 'Academy, and studied the Talmud, although not the Shulhan Aruh', and who attended lectures on Jewish law by Dr. Eisenstadt for a year at a law school, and who - he added - was in a better position than others, knowing both parties to the marriage, for 'it is impossible to deceive me as those who register marriages at the Rabbinate might be' - this advocate examined the certificates in the hands of the parties, and after having made his findings in regard to their personal status, he performed the ceremony of sanctification and authorised them to live together as husband and wife. It is, of course, no part of our duty to examine the standard of 'knowledge' attained by Mr. Ganor in Jewish law - of the Talmud and the commentators, both the early and the later - nor is the matter of any importance for our present purposes. It is, however, admitted by all that Mr. Ganor knew - and it is to be assumed that he also conveyed this knowledge to his clients, the bride and bridegroom, and also to the witnesses who 'accompanied the bridal pair' - of the prohibition imposed by the Bible on a person of priestly family from marrying a divorced woman, and of the rules of marriage made by the Rabbis of Israel, in accordance with which - as was held by the learned judge:-

"It is forbidden (a) to perform a sanctification of a betrothal except when there is a marriage canopy, in the presence of ten witnesses, and after the registration of the marriage in the offices of the Rabbinate ; (b) to celebrate a sanctification save by those who are authorised and appointed for that purpose by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, local officers of the Rabbinate, and officers of the Chief Rabbinate in each city and large town; (c) to rely upon any evidence of a marriage which has not been performed in accordance with this rule."

As is well known, these restrictions are strengthened by the Ban which is imposed on any person who infringes them. I do not intend to investigate here the validity of the marriage which was celebrated in breach of these rules, or the penalty which follows such infringement. What interests me here is the intrinsic meaning of the Regulations of the Rabbis of Israel in general, and of these marriage regulations in particular.

30. The various rules framed by the spiritual leaders of the Jewish people during the long period of its exile were designed to regulate, by means of the imposition of an internal independent discipline, the conduct of Jewish communities, to uphold their spiritual and moral level, to define the right of the individual and the community, to fix the relationship between man and his neighbour, and to lead to the increase of religion and wisdom in Israel. One of the earliest series of rules was intended to regulate married life and was designed to build a fence around and to prevent any breaches in the wall of the Jewish family. These rules in regard to marriage, which were dictated by the needs of the place and time, were framed primarily to prevent clandestine sanctifications, sanctifications of persons kidnapped, sanctifications which would bring the institution into contempt, sanctifications contrived as a result of cunning, sanctifications entered into by compulsion, and other sanctifications and marriages which were opposed to the morals of Judaism and the customs of the Jewish people. They were designed to impose, and they did in fact impose, the rule of the home over Jewish communities in the lands of their dispersion, and to impose community rule upon the individual. By reason of the special circumstances in which diaspora Jews found themselves, the sanction for these rules was the punishment which could be imposed, namely, the Ban, which involved not only the exclusion of the wrongdoer from the communal group, but also his excommunication and treatment as an outlaw.

31. It is not disputed that in our times, and in the Jewish State, matters such as these demand an approach consistent with the existence of a sovereign state, and the elimination from our renewed life of the institutions of the exile. Until, however, such matters are regulated by the State, it would seem that in some areas of activity - and in particular in the area of personal status - the vital need today, even in this country, for a number of rules which, in their time and place, fulilled so vital a function in the life of the Jewish communities of the exile, has not yet completely disappeared. My colleague, Silberg J., with great erudition, has dealt at length with the 'Jerusalem Ban' - which was relied upon by the learned judge in the Court below - and cited both early and late authorities in support of his observations. I do not wish to repeat the details of that Ban, which is similar to rules acted upon previously by our people, in exile and in the Land of Israel itself. Special interest attaches, however, to the introductory words to that Ban, and to the rules for the enforcement of which it was introduced. The introduction provides as follows: -

"Because of the Ingathering of the Exiles from all the places of their dispersion, and from the ends of the earth, and far-away isles, who are coming up in their thousands and tens of thousands, and are settling in the Holy Land through the great loving-kindness of the Holy One, and are bringing with them their former customs which are not in accordance with the rulings of the sages of the Land of Israel in the Holy City of Jerusalem, and those of the Rabbis of the communities of Israel in Matters of sanctification, divorce, levirate marriage, and this is liable to lead to differences of opinion in Israel and to disturb the peace of the House of Israel; for this reason we have regarded it as our duty to re-enact the rules issued by our former Rabbis, and to add further similar rules which are demanded by the times for the sake of ensuring the peace of the community - rules which are of fundamental importance in regard to all the rules of our former Rabbis for their communities from the days of Moses until later generations.

This follows the customary invocation of the help of God and the expression of deference to the great sages of bygone ages, and the consent obtained for the Ban by all the great rabbinical authorities then living in Jerusalem."

            This Ban and these rules were designed, therefore, to build a fence 1⁾ and so prevent licentiousness in Jewish family life, and thus preserve stable relationships, a high moral level, and the purity of ethical standards in this fundamental institution of human society. The fact that such regulations have not lost their meaning may be seen from the facts of Banin v. Banin (11). That case dealt with a man who sanctified a woman against her will, and not in the presence of ten persons, and so forth. The matter came before the Rabbis, who annulled the sanctification. This shows that demoralization still exists, threatening the stability of the family and the status of the Jewish woman. The regulations were designed to build a fence against such lawlessness. What did the appellants do in this case?! What did the lawyer do who guided them by his advice and acts? They impudently disregarded accepted rules, and were impervious to the purpose which those rules were designed to achieve.

32. Nor is this all. In the time of the Mandate the authorities in this country recognised the urgent communal need of centralising in one legal body matters relating to the marriage and divorce of the residents of the country, in order that there should be continuous and effective control over such matters. This is proved by the Marriage and Divorce (Registration) Ordinance ( Drayton, Vol. 2, Chap. 88), which laid down detailed and express directions for the registration of marriages and divorces, and special instructions for giving effect to those directions. And in order to prevent unbridled licence in such matters, it was held by this court in the time of the Mandate (see Rokach v. District Commissioner (12)) that the authorities were not obliged to supply forms of certificates for the registration of marriages and divorces to a Rabbi who was not authorised as a registering authority by the competent religious institutions of the Jewish community. The effect of this ruling is that not even every Rabbi in Israel is empowered by the law of the country to celebrate sanctifications. A couple, therefore, who approach a rabbi who is not entitled to register marriages according to law, to celebrate a marriage between them, does so in vain. In that case Frumkin J. said, at p. 201:

"... One cannot overlook the danger of upholding the contention of the respondents, both from the point of view of public policy, as well as of the preservation of the traditional purity of Jewish family life ... The main object of the Ordinance would then be defeated and the purpose of keeping the celebration of marriage and divorce within the framework of law and good order undermined."

33. It would perhaps not be superfluous to review here, shortly, the attitude taken by the Supreme Court in the time of the Mandate to the question of the validity of marriages of the type with which we are now dealing, though I myself am not prepared to decide the appeal on this point in view of my attitude on the other questions which have arisen. The opinion of the Supreme Court in the time of the Mandate was expressed on a number of occasions by Frumkin J.,and the same conception is found in all his judgments on this question as a central theme. In Banin's case (11), Frumkin J. said, at p. 562:

            "We personally feel some doubts as to the validity in law of the second marriage. According to the evidence of the woman, who is supposed to be the second wife of the Respondent, she was not married to the Respondent by marriage contract, but by a marriage ceremony (Kiddushin) in the presence of two witnesses. In the case of HefziBah v. Ibrahim Mizrahi, the Rabbinical Court of Appeal of Palestine has declared invalid Kiddushin not effected before a representative of the Rabbinate and not in the presence of a congregation of ten, and not accompanied by a deed of writing."

            In another judgment, (see ,Silberstein v. Constable in Charge of Police Lock-up (13), Frumkin J. said, at p. 17 :

            "The effective part of the solemnisation of a marriage ceremony under Jewish law is that the bridegroom puts a ring on the finger of the bride saying : 'You are hereby sanctified to me under the Law of Moses and Israel'. Under strict Religious law the mere handing over of the ring or a coin to the bride followed by the said phrase is sufficient to establish a binding marriage between the parties; but in practice this is not the common form of marriage. It is only a part - as I have said, the effective part - of the ceremony which should be 1⁾ celebrated by a religious minister in the presence of a congregation of at least ten males and is accompanied by a written deed of marriage, called 'Ketuba'.

            Again in another judgment, Stark v. Chief Execution Officer (6), Frumkin J. said, at p. 279 :

"On more than one occasion I expressed my distaste  for forms of marriage like this and I have a very strong view that semi-marriages of that sort, if I may so call it, should be discouraged, but if under Jewish law some sort of a tie is established between a couple undergoing such a formality, a dispute arising out of or in connection with it must be left for the Rabbinical Court to decide.However strange it might seem that there might be a marriage which is yet incomplete such a thing apparently exists in the Jewish law and just as parties are allowed to sue for certain rights under a defective agreement, there is no reason why a party should not be allowed to sue for certain rights under an incomplete marriage."

            In these cases a civil court was not asked to give a declaration of rights, and the question of validity of the marriage only arose incidentally in an application for the giving of actual relief of another kind. The court, however, whenever it found it possible to do so, did not fail to express its contempt for marriages performed in this way, and to voice serious doubts as to the validity of such marriages.

34. In short, we are not dealing with the case of a man who came to this country from overseas bringing his wife with him, or who sanctified a woman here according to Jewish rites in good faith and in a manner in which such a ceremony is performed in his own country, and who seeks a declaration of rights, that is to say, in more usual terms - who seeks legal confirmation of his marriage. We are dealing with people who knew the position, and intended to circumvent it. They did not genuinely believe that their sanctification had been performed in accordance with religious rites and in accordance with law. On the contrary, they knew that - at least from a formal point of view - the sanctification had been performed in defiance of the rites of the law. They ask us for a judgment declaring their rights according to Jewish law, when they themselves have impudently paid no regard to Jewish law and the rules promulgated by those having authority in the very matter from which, as they submit, their rights flow. They claim rights emanating from their own wrongdoing. The matter may be compared with one who offends the law as did Zimri and asks to receive the reward of Phineas 1). And Phineas, let it be added, was also of priestly family. Is this a case in which the court should help those who seek its assistance and exercise its discretion in their favour ? Is it conceivable, for example, that a man who married a minor in contravention of the Marriage Age Law, 1950, could petition a civil court and seek a declaration that the marriage was valid according to Jewish law ? And if he were to seek such relief - is it conceivable that the court would accede to his request although his submission be sound from the purely legal point of view? This would be an abuse of the process of the court and not a means of exercising its jurisdiction. In my opinion the court is not bound to assist lawbreakers and should prevent a wrongdoer from reaping the benefits of his wrong.

35. As I have said, I have found no direct authority for the conclusion which I have reached. I cannot help feeling, however, that from the point of view of equity, and from the point of view of "the accepted principles according to which the court uses its powers" - according to the true test as laid down by Bankes L.J. in the Guaranty Trust case (31) - this is a case in which the court is not bound to exercise its discretion in favour of the appellants. My colleague, Silberg J. has reached the opposite conclusion, but he too did not do so without much reluctance. This is what he says : -

            "I have arrived at this conclusion with considerable reluctance. I frankly admit that my inclination, as a judge and as a man, has been, from beginning to end, not to give official sanction to that private ceremony. Nobody will approve of marriage ceremonies like this, and no judge will feel sympathetic towards applications like the present."

My learned colleague states, at the conclusion of his remarks: -

            "In short: I have reviewed every aspect of the case, and I have found no ground for the annulment of the sanctification."

            With all respect and regard for the views of my colleague, the court has not been asked to annul the sanctification, but to declare its validity - that is to say, to give it legal confirmation. As is well known, the distance is wide indeed between a prayer for annulment and one for a declaration of validity.

            Neither in the South African case of Martens v. Martens (51), which is mentioned at the conclusion of the judgment of Silberg J., nor in the English case of H. v. H. (34), which quotes the South African case with approval, was the question considered of the right of the 'deceivers', the 'fictitious' husband and wife, to appear before the court and to ask with supreme effrontery for a declaration by the court that their marriage was celebrated in accordance with religion and law. The question of the marriage, although it was of importance in those cases, arose only incidentally in connection with the question of the granting of other vital relief. Those cases, therefore, are of no assistance in the present appeal.

            As far as the attitude of the lower court is concerned, it is sufficient to read the judgment of the learned judge to see that were it not for the fact that he held the sanctification itself to be invalid, he too would not have exercised his discretion in favour of the appellants.

            My colleague, Sussman J., also expresses his dissatisfaction at the 'act of lawlessness' in the celebration of the secret sanctification, and he suggests his own solution to the whole problem. But does not common sense demand that, in the light of this dissatisfaction, the court should not confirm the 'act of lawlessness' and give it official sanction ?

36. In conclusion I wish to make two short observations. In the first place, the appellants are not altogether without remedy. They are entitled even now to submit their application to the Rabbinical Court. That court is competent to deal with their prayer, and we have seen that it has already recognised the sanctification of a member of a priestly family to a divorcee. Moreover, in accordance with what was held in A. v. B. (22),

            "Any person interested is entitled to request the Rabbinical Court to define his personal status. The considerations which are taken into account by a civil court are not conclusive in the Rabbinical Court."

            My second observation is this. It cannot be said that the present case is an isolated one or the last of its kind, and that the civil courts will not be asked in the future to decide similar matters. We were told in the course of the proceedings that a judgment was given not long ago on the question of the validity of a secret marriage between a member of a priestly family and a divorcee, and that the judges of the District Court were divided in their opinions. It is true that the Marriage and Divorce Law referred to has introduced a radical change in the procedure to be followed in matters of personal status, and that the great majority of these questions will be considered in future by the Rabbinical Court. That law, however, only applies to residents and nationals, and if a declaration were to be given by this court in the present case, a vast number of foreign nationals and residents, in a position similar to that of the appellants, will bring their wives who were previously divorced to this country from overseas, or will marry divorcees in this country secretly, and will then approach the courts of this country for legal confirmation of their acts. The courts of this country will thus be turned into a clearing house to which all doubtful sanctifications and all void sanctifications of the persons described will be brought for confirmation and validation. In my opinion, this must be prevented at all costs.

            In view of what I have said, I would dismiss the appeal.

            It is therefore decided by a majority to allow the appeal, to set aside the judgment of the court below, and to declare that on December 16, 1962, at Tel Aviv, the first appellant Aharon Cohen, sanctified the second appellant, Bella Bousslik, by a Jewish ceremony of sanctification and that by virtue of that sanctification they are to be regarded as husband and wife as from the above date.

            Appeal allowed.

            Judgment given on January 15, 1954.

At the Supreme Court sitting as the Court for Civil Appeals

C.A. 8954/11

Before:                                                            The Hon. Deputy Chief Justice M. Naor

The Hon. Justice S. Joubran

The Hon. Justice N. Sohlberg

The Appellant:                                    John Doe

V e r s u s

The Respondent:                                 1. Jane Doe

The formal Respondent:                     2. Jane Doe

An appeal on the judgment of the Jerusalem District Court in C.C. 3213/09, dated October 11, 2011, by Justice Gila Knafi-Steinitz

On behalf of the Appellant:                Adv. Ephraim Abramson, Adv. Yifat Aran

On behalf of the Respondents:           Adv. Amir Fischer

Judgment

Justice Noam Sohlberg:

"All human beings have three lives: public, private, and secret".

(-Gabriel Garcia Marques-)

Table of Contents

The Parties and the Main Facts...................................................................................... 3

The Parties' Main Arguments in the District Court........................................................ 4

Abstract of the District Court Judgment....................................................................... 6

The Main Arguments of the Appellant in the Appeal.................................................... 9

The Main Arguments of the Respondent in the Appeal.............................................. 12

The Normative Framework.......................................................................................... 15

Freedom of Expression and Artistic Freedom............................................................. 16

The Autobiographical Composition............................................................................. 18

The Right to Privacy.................................................................................................... 21

The Right to Privacy – Scope...................................................................................... 23

The Justifications for the Right to Privacy.................................................................. 24

The Intrinsic Justification............................................................................................. 24

Instrumental Justifications........................................................................................... 25

The Right to Privacy and Intimate Relationships........................................................ 29

English Law................................................................................................................. 31

The European Court of Human Rights........................................................................ 35

Continental Law.......................................................................................................... 36

U.S. Law...................................................................................................................... 38

Interim Summary – Foreign Law................................................................................. 40

The Normative Balance between the Rights................................................................ 40

Proportionality in the Narrow Sense – a Balance of Profit and Loss.......................... 41

Freedom of Speech and the Right to Privacy.............................................................. 43

From the General to the Particular – the Right to Privacy and Freedom of Speech... 48

Degree of Fictionalization............................................................................................ 49

The Degree of Invasion of Privacy.............................................................................. 52

Protection of the Trust Relations between Couples..................................................... 52

Freedom of Speech...................................................................................................... 53

Concern of Literary Work being Shelved.................................................................... 54

Copyright and Defamation.......................................................................................... 56

Consent of the Respondent......................................................................................... 56

Conclusion................................................................................................................... 57

Prologue

1. An appeal on the judgment of the Jerusalem District Court in C.C. 3213/09, (Justice Gila Knafi-Steinitz) which granted the Respondent's motion for the issuance of a permanent injunction to prohibit the Appellant from publishing and distributing a book written by him. In addition, the Appellant was charged to pay damages to the Respondent in the amount of ILS 200,000 for her non-pecuniary damages.
2. The core issue at the center of the discussion is the question of the proper balance between the right to freedom of expression and artistic freedom on the one hand, and the right to privacy and a good reputation on the other.

The Parties and the Main Facts

3. The Appellant – a married man and father of children, who lived with his family in Jerusalem, is the author of the novel contemplated in this suit (hereinafter: the "Novel").
4. The Respondent was employed in a cinema in Jerusalem during 2001, was at that time a student in an art institute, and was living with her partner in the vicinity of the Appellant's neighborhood in Jerusalem. The details of her life were the Appellant's inspiration in writing the Novel; the Formal Respondent – the publisher – published the Novel.
5. In 2001, the Appellant met the Respondent at her workplace in the cinema. With time, the connection between the two deepened, and turned from an "acquaintance" to a close and intimate relationship, which lasted some five years – first in secrecy, then disclosed to the people close to them, and eventually published in the Novel. Following the exposure of the romantic relationship between the two, the Appellant divorced his wife and the Respondent separated from her partner.
6. In the midst of the romantic relationship, the Respondent was diligently preparing her graduation project, as part of her last year of studies, which mainly focused on a relationship developing between a man and a woman.
7. At the end of 2004, the Appellant began a work of his own, a first novel focusing on the "drama of breaking up a family" (as stated on the back of the book). The Novel describes an emerging intimate relationship between a man of the Appellant's age, who is discouraged by a non-fulfilling marriage, and a young student, starting with their first meeting at a cinema. The male-protagonist's occupation is identical to that of the Appellant; the cinema is the one in which the Respondent was employed. In the Novel, at the beginning of their acquaintance, the male-protagonist is a married man, father of children and living with his family in Jerusalem, whereas the female-protagonist, a single young-adult woman, rents an apartment in Jerusalem, close to the home of the male-protagonist, where she lives with her partner. Upon the completion of the exhausting work of writing, the Novel was published. The publication of the Novel was accompanied by a marketing campaign in the media, including an interview in the weekend supplement of a widely distributed newspaper, a TV interview and articles in newspapers and various websites.
8. Immediately upon the publication of the Novel, the Respondent contacted the Appellant and the Publisher and demanded to immediately stop the marketing and distribution of the Novel, to recall all copies already distributed, and to compensate her for her damages. According to her, the book is an accurate autobiographical description of the author's life, and it includes descriptions pertaining to the intimate aspect of the relationship between them, while severely violating her privacy and committing libel and slander: "in writing and publishing the book you breached the law, fatally violated her privacy pursuant to the provisions of Sections 2(8), 2(9), 2(10) of the Protection of Privacy Law… and published libel against her under Sections 1 and 2 of the Defamation (Prohibition) Law…" (letter of the Respondent's attorney, Adv. Amir Fishcer). The Respondent further claimed that the unlawful use of her personal letters for the purpose of writing the Novel establishes an independent cause of action under the Copyright Law.
9. Upon receipt of the said demand, the publisher notified the Respondent, in an unusual step, and without admitting to her claims, that it decided to temporarily cease the distribution of the Novel until the dispute is resolved. To that end, the publisher contacted the retail chains and bookstores and asked to retrieve the copies of the Novel that were yet unsold.
10. After some communication between the parties, and as the Respondent's said demands were not entirely fulfilled, the suit contemplated herein was filed to the Jerusalem District Court. On June 9, 2009, the Jerusalem District Court (Justice H. Ben Ami) granted the Petitioner's motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the distribution of the Novel written by the Appellant (M.C.M. 7649/09). A motion for permission to appeal, which was filed with this Court (L.C.A. 5395/09), was denied by Justice (his former title) A. Grunis, in his decision dated August 27, 2009.

The Parties' Main Arguments in the District Court

11. The Respondent's position is that the publication of the Novel and the its distribution severely infringe on her right to privacy, in violation of the Protection of Privacy Law, and further blemish her reputation in violation of the Defamation (Prohibition) Law. According to her, other than changing the names of the protagonists of the Novel, there is complete congruence between herself in her real life and the literary character of the female-protagonist of the Novel. For example, according to the Respondent, the book describes in an autobiographical manner and in "frightening accuracy" the Appellant's life during the time he had an intimate relationship with the Respondent; the female-protagonist's character includes many identifying details that are unique to the Respondent and enable members of her family and acquaintances to easily identify her; in addition, the author did not withhold  the internal and external realms of the Respondent's life, including her body, feelings, weaknesses, her most private secrets, her sexual activity and preferences, as well as her most intimate relationships. Moreover, according to the Respondent, the Appellant in his book, made breaching use of both her letters and her art from the graduation project, without obtaining the required consent and in violation of the provisions of the Copyright Law. With respect to the Publisher's responsibility, the Respondent argued that it knew, or at least should have known, that this is obviously an autobiographical book, and is therefore also liable for the offense and tort. With respect to the damage, the Respondent mentioned the distress caused to her, and the concomitant injury to her future personal and professional life.
12. On the other hand, the Appellant argued that the Novel he wrote is merely a fictional composition, that the real-life persons were nothing but an inspiration, and that the Novel most certainly is not a complete autobiographical and true description of the author's life. Two opinions were submitted on behalf of the Appellant by two experts of the highest caliber in the field of literature: Prof. Ariel Hirschfeld and Prof. Hannan Hever. Prof. Hirschfeld summarized his opinion in several conclusions, inter alia, that "Reading the Novel… it is absolutely clear that it has no pretense to reflect or record actual reality" (para. 32); "Accepting the claim would be a far-reaching precedent, whereby the mere possibility to identify any realistic model for a fictional character, even in the private context known to just a few, will be a violation of the law. In such case, the judicial authority undertakes the re-definition of literature and its boundaries, thus damaging the deep and essential principle of fiction, that which enables the freedom to create and interpret the human reality in its entire complexity" (para. 34). Prof. Hever summarized his opinion with the conclusion that "reviewing the aggregate weight of the existing hints… unequivocally indicates that the book deals with a creation of fiction, rather than real-life reality, and that no 'autobiographical contract' is entered into by the author and his readers. Such conclusion rebuts any claim which is based on such argument" (para. 3.3).
13. The Appellant argues that the source of the identification of the Respondent is the "confirmation bias" – a phenomenon whereby people adhere to similarities and ignore the existence of differences. The Appellant further argued that the Respondent gave her consent and even her blessing to the writing of the Novel. The Respondent read parts of the draft of the book and knew it would be about the affair she had with the Appellant, and therefore will naturally also include intimate details. The Appellant argued that attention should be paid to the fact that the Respondent refrained from reading the book prior to its publication, and thus waived the option to control its content. Moreover, the Respondent's acts amount to "false representation" to the Appellant that she will not deny the publication. According to him, once the Respondent's consented to the publication of the Novel, her argument regarding violation of her right to privacy is precluded. With respect to the Respondent's argument regarding her right to good reputation, the Appellant relies on the testimony of the author Mira Magen, whereby the personality of the female-protagonist, as it is portrayed in the Novel, is endearing in the eyes of the readers. According to him, this is not a humiliating expression, thus, it does not constitute defamation. The Appellant further noted that the Respondent submitted no evidence of the possibility to identify her, and therefore no "actual" injury to privacy had been proved. The Appellant further claimed that insofar as any damage had been caused to the Respondent's privacy, it should be balanced against his freedom of expression and artistic freedom. In such a balance, the freedom of expression prevails. In response to the Respondent's argument with respect to copyrights of her letters, the Appellant argued that their use in his book falls within "fair use". Alternatively, he argued that the Respondent gave her consent for such use. To conclude, the Appellant noted that taking the book off the shelves is inconceivable, for that is a serious and severe injury to freedom of expression and artistic freedom.
14. The Publisher repeated in its arguments some of the arguments raised by the Appellant, and emphasized that he presented the Novel to it as a fiction, hence it did not know, nor could it know, that the Novel is actually based on real events. The Publisher further noted that the Appellant stated, within the agreement therewith, that "his book is a fiction novel… the characters mentioned in it are fragments of the author’s imagination. Any resemblance to reality or to real people is completely coincidental and resulting from the author's imagination or the acquaintances he had in the course of his life" (Section 1.1a of the agreement). The Publisher further noted its fair conduct, from the moment it learned of the Respondent's claims, upon which it put halt to the sales of the book and had it removed from the shelves.

Abstract of the District Court Judgment

15. The District Court first reviewed the main argument of the experts on behalf of the Appellant, Messrs. Hirschfeld and Hever that "the mere publication of a composition as a work of fiction, which has the common literary characteristics of a work of fiction, creates an inseparable border between the content of the work and reality, and bars the review of the content of that composition as a documentary work which records reality" (para. 30 of the Judgment). In addition, the Court addressed the experts' main concern whereby "adopting the alternative position, whereby a work of literature, even when declared to be fictional, might be perceived as a violation of privacy, may lead to a slippery slope…" (ibid). In the second stage, the District Court noted that in this case there is "a dilemma, pertaining to the tension between two important values, which are perceived as two basic rights in a free and democratic society: artistic freedom on the one hand, and the right to privacy on the other" (para. 31 of the Judgment). At the third stage, the District Court ruled that "neither one of these rights can be granted absolute protection, and it is therefore also not possible to adopt  the sweeping position that mere publication as part of a work of literature is sufficient to bar consideration of the violation of privacy argument on its merits. The same position was adopted by the legislator" (para. 36 of the Judgment). The District Court thus denied, de facto, the argument that a fictional novel in itself – by virtue of its literary definition – grants its author absolute protection against any claim of violation of privacy. At the same time, the District Court reserved and stated that "the argument of violation of privacy based on fictional literature will not be easily accepted. The author's argument of fiction… is a weighty argument which has a substantial contribution to the prevention of the violation of privacy", however, it is not enough to exclude it altogether (para. 37 of the Judgment). "A claim of privacy violation based on fictional literature will only be accepted when the argument of fiction is prima facie unequivocally rebutted by the work itself" (ibid).
16. Thereafter, the District Court reviewed the contemplated literary work itself, i.e. – is this a fictional novel, or "documentary literature disguised as a fictional novel" (para. 37 of the Judgment). Following a meticulous review, the District Court ruled that the "character of the female-protagonist in the book includes many unique identification details that identify the Plaintiff therewith in a definite and unequivocal way" (para. 40 of the Judgment). Such unique details include her "…physical appearance, informative details regarding her age, unique occupation, place of studies, work place and residence, details pertaining to her unique art work, identifying details of the defendant, her partner, and events that took place in reality in the presence of third parties…" (ibid). The inclusion of the said identifying details led the District Court to the conclusion that "the Respondent's family members, associates and acquaintances, will unquestionably identify the Respondent as the female-protagonist of this book" (para. 41 of the Judgment). The District Court further stated, in response to the Appellant's argument, that in order to prove the identification, there is no need to present witnesses who will expressly identify the literary character with the Respondent. Such identification transpires, according to the District Court, from the book itself.
17. Having reviewed and considered the parties' arguments with respect to the violation of privacy, the District Court concluded that the violation of the Respondent's privacy derives from the aggregate weight of two main components:
    
    1. The numerous identifying details that indicate that the Respondent, who is not a public figure, is unmistakably the female-protagonist of the Novel written by the Appellant;
    2. The number of issues exposed in the book that pertain to the core of the individual's privacy, and their scope and nature.

The aggregate weight of these two factors, according to the District Court, "rebuts the author's fiction argument " (para. 51 of the Judgment), and turns the Novel to a documentary book disguised as a fictional composition. In other words, the author "abused the characteristics of fictional literature, in order to document his relationship with the Plaintiff, while severely damaging her privacy" (ibid). The District Court emphasized that the violation of the Respondent's privacy could have easily been avoided "insofar as her character… would have been camouflaged and made indistinct by disguising details". However, the District Court noted that the Appellant's insistence on including in his book many details that identify the Respondent as the female-protagonist of his book, and his choice to stay as close to reality as possible work against him: "instead of 'distancing' the work from the Plaintiff, and detaching it from the milestones of the reality of his relationship… the Defendant chose to firmly anchor it in a specific reality, known and recognized not only to himself and the Plaintiff, but also to numerous third parties" (para. 52 of the Judgment).

18. The District Court denied the Appellant's argument that the Respondent ostensibly gave her consent to the publication of the Novel. Relying on an "array of evidence" it was held that the Appellant failed to prove that the Respondent indeed gave her "informed consent, whether expressly or implicitly, for publications that contain violation of her privacy" (para. 59 of the Judgment). First, the book, in its full version, was never submitted for the Respondent's perusal – neither in its original nor in its final version – and her consent for its publication was not requested (ibid); second, the Appellant admitted that he initially considered publishing the book under a pseudonym, and contemplated this option up until the book’s publication (para. 60 of the Judgment); third, the Respondent's objection, prior to the book’s publication, to mentioning the name of the institute where she studied (para. 61 of the Judgment); fourth, the Appellant's response to the Respondent's arguments following the book’s publication (para. 62 of the Judgment); fifth, the "charged" and impressive testimony of the Respondent in the District Court (para. 63 of the Judgment). In conclusion, the District Court ruled that "not only did the Plaintiff not give informed consent to the violation of her privacy, but she clarified to the Defendant, prior to the publication, that she forbids him to include any detail that might lead to her identification in the book." (para. 65 of the Judgment).
19. Regarding the right to a reputation, the District Court ruled that the question whether the Novel refers to the Respondent in a "humiliating, offensive or demeaning" manner shall be decided according to an objective standard of the reasonable person. The mere fact that the Respondent is described in the Novel as "someone who carried an intimate relationship with a married man, and did that in parallel to the relationship with her partner at the time… someone who will trample anything in her way to reach her goals, and someone who is using people 'as if they were objects'" (para. 68 of the Judgment) in itself constitutes defamation.
20. The District Court denied the Appellant's arguments that various defenses are available to him under the Protection of Privacy Law and the Defamation (Prohibition) Law. Regarding the defense of public interest under Section 18(3) of the Protection of Privacy Law, the District Court held that "the Law… does not extend absolute protection to any literary composition… the Law only extends protection to the infringement of privacy when there is 'a public interest which justifies the infringement under the circumstances'" (para. 72 of the Judgment). The Appellant failed to establish any reason to justify the satisfaction of his freedom of expression in such an offensive manner, and it could have easily been satisfied by publishing the Appellant's artistic work without infringing the Respondent's privacy. Regarding the defense of good faith under Section 18(2)(g) of the Protection of Privacy Law and Section 15(6) of the Defamation (Prohibition) Law, the District Court held that the violation was not in good faith. The Appellant acted to publish the Novel in its full version, and paid no attention to the Respondent's demands to refrain from publishing it.
21. With respect to the Respondent's arguments regarding violation of copyright of her letters, the District Court held that the proof of the infringement of privacy and the remedies resulting therefrom render the need to decide on the issue of copyright to the letters redundant. The District Court noted that even if the Appellant's acts do constitute a violation of the Respondent's copyright "this does not justify compensation beyond the compensation that was determined" (para. 80 of the Judgment).
22. Regarding the liability of the Publisher, it was ruled that its acts do not establish legal liability under Section 31 of the Protection of Privacy Law and Section 12 of the Defamation (Prohibition) Law. "In the matter herein, Defendant 2 did not have to know, on the basis of the facts available to it at the time of the book’s publication… that the book includes a violation of privacy with respect to the Plaintiff" (end of para. 85 of the Judgment).
23. Therefore, the District Court prohibited the publication of the book and its distribution. The monetary compensation to the Respondent, for her non-pecuniary damages, was set at ILS 200,000, after the District Court had considered the scope of the violation of the Respondent's privacy, nature of the publication, number of books distributed, pain and suffering caused to the Respondent, the Appellant's behavior, insisting on the publication of the Novel even after her requests and demands to refrain therefrom, and additional considerations.

The Main Arguments of the Appellant in the Appeal

24. According to the Appellant's position, the District Court erred in its interpretation of the Protection of Privacy Law. According to him, "the status of fictional works does not depend on the ability to identify their sources of inspiration but rather on the probability that their content would be attributed to the Plaintiff as a true description". In other words, "fictional compositions have a special status because of the interpretation of the text and not because the lack of identification of the sources of inspiration". The Appellant argues that "under the existing legal status, the attribution of the published content" to the Respondent requires the fulfillment of two cumulative conditions: first, the identification of the real character with the fictional one; and second, the interpretation of the literary text as a "true description" pertaining to the real person. However, according to the Appellant – in terms of what the law ought to be – the proof of another element should be required: "the proof of malicious intent on the author's part". Alternatively, the Appellant argues that lack of fulfillment of the said second condition is seemingly sufficient to grant the appeal herein, while reversing the judgment of the District Court.
25. The Appellant further notes that the common position in case law is that the Defamation (Prohibition) Law can be considered as a helpful tool in the interpretation of the Protection of Privacy Law. Pursuant to Section 3 of the Defamation (Prohibition) Law (concerning "means of expressing defamation"), omitting the name of the party injured by the publication "does not preclude defamation, provided that the content pertains to him"; i.e. – according to the Appellant, the Respondent must prove that the combination of the published content with external circumstances, indeed leads to the attribution of the published content to her. The Appellant further refers to the ruling of the District Court, whereby "A claim of privacy violation based on fictional literature will only be accepted when the argument of fiction is prima facie unequivocally rebutted by the work itself" (see Para. 16 above). According to the Appellant, "reasonable reading of the Novel, which takes into account its metaphoric nature… does not lead to the conclusion that the content of the book is true and reflects the reality of the Respondent's life" (para. 39 of the Appellant's summations).
26. According to the Appellant, the test of the "ability to identify the injured person", which was adopted by the District Court, cannot be used as a single condition for the classification of a literary composition as a documentary text, for the purpose of implementing the Protection of Privacy Law and the Defamation (Prohibition) Law. Even more so, according to him, the sources of a fictional composition can almost always be identified. "The unwritten common contract between artists and art consumers in the western culture is that all those books that are published and distributed under the title of "Fiction" do not document reality but are a fiction for all intents and purposes". Moreover, the Appellant warns against the adoption of a legal policy that encourages lawsuits against authors, requiring them to "confirm or deny the degree of similarity between the book’s plot and the reality of their lives". According to him, this state of affairs places authors in an inherently inferior position, i.e. – the similarity is more easily noticed than the differences, in view of the proven existence of the psychological phenomenon called the "confirmation bias".
27. The Appellant argues that the discussion in the District Court’s judgment "was flawed by over-interference in considerations of artistic editing", and ignored the fact that, in any case, there was no proximate cause between the inclusion of the details in the Novel and the identification of the female-protagonist with the Respondent. According to him, the District Court erred in accepting the argument that his choice to write the Novel under his own name, rather than under a pseudonym, precipitates his identification with the male-protagonist, and consequently – the identification of the Respondent with the literary character of the female-protagonist.
28. The Appellant further disagrees with the District Court's ruling that the violation of the Respondent's privacy could have easily been avoided by blurring and camouflaging identifying details. According to him, such ruling is based on "retrospective wisdom", and therefore cannot attest to his "offensive" intent. In this context, the Appellant further notes that the Respondent's consent to a detailed description of her unique work of art in the Novel, realizing that the readers may associate her with the literary character, cannot be ignored.
29. According to the Appellant, the District Court erred in giving no weight to autobiographical artistic freedom. According to him, the book contemplated herein is nothing but a fictional Novel, and in any event the Court must balance the Appellant's autobiographical artistic freedom against the Respondent's right to protection of privacy. Denying the Appeal at bar, according to him, may put an end to autobiographical writing as a whole.
30. Moreover, the Appellant argues that the District Court erred in applying, de facto, a vertical balancing of rights rather than horizontal balancing; i.e. – prioritized the Respondent's right to privacy over the Appellant's freedom of expression. According to him, the District Court used a "statistical formula" whereby there is high probability that the Respondent will be identified in a manner that may lead to a violation her privacy. Alternatively, the Appellant argues that horizontal balancing implies that he should be allowed to make corrections to his work. In support, the Appellant notes that in the hearing held on June 13, 2011 before the District Court, he offered to delete parts of his book and change the characteristics of the female-protagonist, as will be required.
31. According to the Appellant's position, the District Court erred in ruling that the Novel is excluded from the defense of good faith under Section 18(2)(g) of the Protection of Privacy Law in the circumstances of Section 15(6) of the Defamation (Prohibition) Law. The Appellant supports his arguments, inter alia, on the testimony of his friend, who noted that the Appellant acted "under the belief that the Plaintiff will be glad and proud of the character whose creation was inspired by her, and of the entire Novel, which is an expression of appreciation of her graduation project". Therefore, according to the Appellant, the District Court erred in ruling that the "violation was not in good faith. The Appellant was informed that the Plaintiff objects to the publication, and he therefore cannot claim that he believed in good faith that he was entitled to do so".
32. The Appellant argues that "the appropriate balance between artistic freedom and the protection of privacy, in lawsuits pertaining to an argument of violation of privacy in fictional compositions, will be obtained by a test that will focus on the question whether the author acted with malicious intent". According to him, the factual matrix indicates that he had no "malicious intent" in publishing the book contemplated herein or at least in the humiliation of the Respondent. On the contrary, the close acquaintance with the Respondent and her behavior during their relationships "caused the Appellant to truly believe that the Respondent does not recoil from exposure", and even more so from the publication of a Novel for which she was the inspiration. Thus, this is not a violation of the Respondent's privacy that will prevail over the Appellant's freedom of expression. Moreover, the Appellant argues that mere negligence is insufficient in itself to hold the author of the composition liable, due to fear of "abuse" of fictional literature. However, under the circumstances herein, the District Court held that the Appellant's negligence in obscuring the identity of the source of inspiration for a character in the book is sufficient to justify the prevention of its publication and the prohibition of its distribution.
33. Based on the defense of "public interest" under Section 18(3) of the Protection of Privacy Law, the Appellant argues that there is "public interest" in the publication of the Novel contemplated here. "The Novel concerns a universal issue: romantic relationships, the world the man and the world of the woman, marriage, parenthood, love and its collapse… at the center of public discourse…". As evidence, the Appellant refers to readers' letters sent to him following the publication of the Novel which describe "a deep sense of identification with the protagonists". According to the Appellant, the position adopted by the District Court, whereby "literature will not be harmed if writers are prohibited from including [in the composition] details that enable the identification of the sources of inspiration" in fact seeks "to eat the cake and leave it whole". Adopting a judicial policy in the spirit of the aforesaid position, might condition on the artistic freedom of writers by stating: "you [authors – N.S.] may develop the fictional characters as you please, with the exclusion of details that later, potential injured persons may appear and argue to be exposing their identity". The Appellant again notes that he proposed to the District Court to allow him to edit the Novel such that details which may be viewed as "lacking public interest" will be omitted, and therefore, the extinction of the Novel as a whole is a disproportionate judicial ruling.
34. According to the Appellant, the District Court erred in imposing the entire legal liability on him. He believes that "pursuant to the consideration of fairness, he who benefits from an activity should bear the consequences thereof". The Appellant thus insinuates, indirectly, that liability should have been imposed on the Formal Respondent, as the publisher who gained most of the royalties resulting from the publication of the Novel. The Appellant further notes that "contributory fault, implied consent or at least voluntary assumption of risk on the Respondent's part should be added in the matter at hand" as she knew for three years that he was writing a Novel inspired by the relationship he had with her.
35. The Appellant further complains on the lack of balance, according to him, in the remedies ordered by the District Court. He believes that the District Court erred in not issuing a more proportionate injunction, i.e. – 'limited in time', or alternatively one that conditions the publication of the Novel on the omission or re-editing of parts thereof. The Appellant further challenges the amount of monetary damages awarded, which is not based on proven damage to the Respondent, and does not properly weigh additional considerations.

The Main Arguments of the Respondent in the Appeal

36. According to the Respondent, the Appellant, who neglected to attach his affidavit to the Exhibit Volume on his behalf, does not dispute the factual findings determined in the judgment of the District Court. Under these circumstances, his arguments related to the legal conclusions at the basis of the Judgment creates a difficulty with the line of argument on which his appeal is based.
37. The Respondent further notes that the District Court rightfully denied the Appellant's argument, whereby the publication of an intimate relationship guised as a literary Novel is allegedly sufficient to make the protection against an expected violation of privacy redundant. According to her, the Appellant seeks to add an "artificial defense" to the provisions of the Protection of Privacy Law and the Defamation (Prohibition) Law, in contrary to the position of the legislator.
38. The Respondent relies on the ruling of the District Court whereby the fiction argument used by the Appellant is an "empty shell" and that the Novel's storyline is an exact reflection of reality, including many events which took place and were experienced by the Appellant and the Respondent in the presence of third parties. The Respondent supports her arguments on the reasoning of the District Court’s Judgment for the denial of the Appellant's position that the Novel is a fictional composition, and in the holding that the Appellant's arguments regarding the tests that should be applied in the deliberation of a fictional composition are baseless.
39. The Respondent further argues that the Appellant's position that "lawsuits for damage to reputation and violation of privacy that pertain to fictional compositions, will only be accepted in exceptional and rare cases" does not contradict the judgment but rather supports it. The issue at bar is indeed an "exceptional and rare case".
40. The Respondent also refers to additional factual arguments raised by the Appellant, including the passing of time between the beginning of the intimate relationship between the Appellant and the Respondent, and the publication of the Novel. However, there is no need to provide further details within the Appeal herein. Moreover, the Respondent argues that the Appellant's attempted "comparison" – i.e. the comparison of his personal liability to that of the publisher, is irrelevant.
41. According to the Respondent, the Appellant's fear that "similarity is far more evident than differences" was considered by the District Court, which specifically qualified and clarified that “a claim of privacy violation based on fictional literature will only be accepted when the argument of fiction is prima facie unequivocally rebutted by the work itself " and where there is, in addition, "clear and inevitable identification".
42. The Respondent argues that the absurd expected outcome of "burial of masterpieces of the Hebrew Literature" described by the Appellant with respect to the Judgment of the District Court – has no grounds and is argued in vain. According to her, freedom of expression and artistic freedom will only be limited under "exceptional and extreme circumstances of certain and inevitable identification, and when the scope of the violation of privacy and damage to reputation and its magnitude, are that severe".
43. With respect to the Appellant's argument that a "third element" should be required – the establishment of malicious intent on the part of the author – the Respondent argues that such requirement imposes too heavy of a burden on the injured party – "to prove the veiled inner motivations of the perpetrator". Under the circumstances of the Appeal at bar, the Respondent believes that in light of her repeated pleadings not to publish the novel, the "malicious intent of the Appellant, and at the very least, his total apathy in view of the damage caused to the Respondent upon the publishing of the book – was also proven".
44. According to the Respondent, the Appellant's decision to publish the Novel under his own name contributed to her identification with the female protagonist of the Novel. According to her, the rulings of the District Court should not be viewed as "over-interference in considerations of artistic editing" but rather as an "obvious logical conclusion". The Respondent further denies the Appellant's argument that the District Court allegedly founded its conclusions on "hindsight", since "had she known of the many, more specific, details included in the book which lead to her identification, she would have overtly objected to the publication of the book". Not only did the Appellant deny the Respondent's pleas, he also ignored the pleas of his former wife and mother of his children, who appealed to him to avoid the publication of the Novel.
45. With respect to her alleged consent to include a detailed description of her unique work of art in the Novel, the Respondent refers to the factual ruling of the District Court in this respect: "all that was presented to her was a paragraph pertaining to her work". According to her, it was proved to the District Court that she had no knowledge of the Appellant's intention to include in the Novel descriptions that would violate her privacy and damage her reputation.
46. According to the Respondent, the superiority of the freedom of autobiographical expression in the American Law, on which the Appellant relies, exists "only in cases where it is intended to promote a justified public interest". Regarding the issue of public interest in publishing the Novel contemplated herein, the Respondent refers to the Judgment of Justice (his former title) A. Grunis in L.C.A. 5395/09: "In the matter at bar, the publication of the book does not reflect a public interest of high importance. The Respondent is not a public figure. The events which are argued to be described in the book occurred in private circumstances. The public has no special interest in these details" (ibid, Para. 6). Moreover, review of the judgments referred to by the Appellant clearly indicates that the infringements described therein are limited – in both scope and magnitude – in comparison to the damage caused to the Respondent; in any case – these are foreign judgments that do not bind the courts in Israel, which "already deliberated – in three different tribunals – the facts of the specific case at bar, and fully denied the thesis at the basis of the Appeal".
47. The Respondent argues that horizontal balancing between rights does not mean orders will be issued regardless of applicable law, but rather balancing between rights of equal standing and deciding which one will prevail under the circumstances of the case at hand. According to her, the District Court rightfully ruled that the Novel inflicts severe damage to her privacy and reputation, and that the Appellant and his book are not protected by the defenses prescribed by law. Moreover, the Respondent claims that the Appellant's proposal to allow the publication of the Novel subject to changes is merely a "manipulative empty proposal"; and putting a time limit of the publication, as he proposed, is expected to backlash in the future and hit her "again, and perhaps more severely than the first time".
48. With respect to the defense of good faith, the Respondent notes that this is a typical factual question that was discussed and decided by the District Court, and in which the appellate jurisdiction should not interfere. Moreover, according to the Respondent, the testimony of the Appellant's friend regarding his intentions in publishing the Novel is not free of doubt. The Appellant knew of the Respondent's demands and requests to refrain from publishing the Novel, thus it is unclear how he can  "hold the stick at both ends". According to her, the Appellant's criticism regarding the requirement of the artificial foundation to prove "malicious intent" in publications, should "be directed at the legislature that determined the limitations of the defense of good faith", and not at the Court.
49. With respect to the defense of "public interest", the Respondent claims that the Appellant relies in his arguments on the online response of an anonymous reader who said the book moved him. According to her, the Appellant's interpretation of the said term strips it of any content or meaning, and in any event – there is no room for comparison between the public interest and damage to the reputation of Captain R. (see C.C. (District Jerusalem) 8206/06 Captain R. v. Dr. Ilana Dayan (December 7, 2009); C.A. 751/10 John Doe v. Dr. Ilana Dayan (February 8, 2012) (hereinafter: "re. Captain R.") and the public interest in the publication of the Novel and the degree of the violation of the Respondent's privacy and damage to her reputation. In this context, the Respondent again refers to the above cited dictum of Justice (his former title) A. Grunis, that "the publishing of the book does not reflect a public interest of high importance". 
50. According to the Respondent, the Appellant's argument that "he who gains from the activity" should be held liable is unclear, and in any event – is not supported by the letter of the law. The Respondent further notes that attributing contributory fault to her own acts is inconsistent with the factual findings determined in the Judgment of the District Court.
51. The Respondent claims that the Appellant failed to present pertinent case law to support his argument that the monetary compensation awarded does not represent proper balance and proportion. On the contrary – the only judgment discussed in the Appellant's summation is the aforementioned re. Captain R., in which the District Court awarded non-pecuniary damages in the amount of ILS 300,000, which was later reduced by the Supreme Court to the amount of ILS 100,000. According to her, the scope of interference of the appellate jurisdiction in damages of that kind is restricted to exceptional cases only. Furthermore, according to the Respondent, the damages set by the District Court are significantly lower than the rate of statutory damages to which she is entitled in view of the magnitude of the violation of her privacy and damage to her reputation.
52. The Respondent further notes that the District Court refrained from deciding the copyright infringement cause of action on its merits. According to her, the Appellant's arguments with respect to both the issue of "fair use" and her alleged consent to the publication of the Novel, are inconsistent with the factual findings as determined in the judgment of the District Court. Additionally, as aforesaid, the District Court did not rule on the independent cause of action of copyright infringement, as it was content with the proof of the violation of the Respondent's privacy. However, the Appellant, on his part, did not bother to address this cause of action in his summations, and therefore, even on such grounds alone, his appeal cannot be accepted.

The Normative Framework

53. The decision regarding the nature of the relationship between "freedom of expression" and "the right to privacy" and the balance between them, is at the core of the social treaty. Section 1 of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty prescribes that “The fundamental human rights in Israel are founded upon recognition of the value of the human being, the sanctity of human life, and the principle that all persons are free; these rights will be upheld in the spirit of the principles set forth in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel”. The "values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic State" are embedded in the Basic Law (Section 1A) and they will guide us. We must turn to explore the fundamental principles at the basis of our legal system. Many pens have been broken, and many keyboards will be worn out in the attempt to define the proper balance between the contemplated basic values. The burden imposed on judges in decisions of a constitutional nature is a heavy one. The fear to possibly damage the freedom to create art, compositions which express the inner desires of the artist and are an inspiration the public, a model to be followed and identified with and at times even spark for social change, weighs against the fear to permit an invasion into the private realms of the individual. "The blessing is only found in that which is kept out of sight" (Bavli, Taanit H, B) with respect to issues pertaining to the inner-personal sphere of the individual. Emergence into the world, untimely and without the full consent of an individual, can actually destroy lives.
54. The proper judicial balance will be decided after examination of the conflicting rights in each case on its merits. The Appeal at bar concerns artistic freedom, including the autobiographical composition. Setting the boundaries of the exact applicability of this right, in consideration of its siblings in the family of rights – the right to a reputation and the right to privacy – is the essence of the Appeal at bar.

Freedom of Expression and Artistic Freedom

55. As is well known, freedom of expression is one of the pillars of our democratic governance, and is one of the basic anchors of the society in which we live. The importance of freedom of expression is amplified in the Israeli society, which is characterized by substantial, even polar, conflicts of opinion, on issues pertaining to the roots of human existence. Israeli law embodies perennial Jewish tradition which encourages dialogue, as concisely verbalized by the expression "these and these are the words of the living God" (both interpretations are legitimate) (Bavli, Eiruvin, 13, 2). Viewing the freedom of expression as a "superior" right (H.C.J. 73/53 "Kol Ha'Am Ltd. v. the Minister of Interior Affairs, PDI 7 871, 878 (1953) (hereinafter: "re. Kol Ha'Am") and as the "heart and soul of democracy" (Cr.A. 255/68 "the State of Israel v. Avraham Ben Moshe, PDI 22(2) 427, 435 (1968)) is grounded in the reality of life in Israel, as well as in the sphere of faiths and opinions which is at the basis of the definition of the State of Israel as a Jewish State.
56. In this sense, freedom of expression serves as a cultural anchor that is partially rooted in the democratic foundation of the State of Israel – "democracy is first and foremost a governance of consent – the opposite of a government based on force. The democratic process is therefore a process wherein the common goals of the people and the way to achieve them are selected through deliberation and verbal negotiation, i.e. by way of open settlement of the problems on the agenda of the State and free exchange of opinions in respect thereof" (re. Kol Ha'Am above, p. 876); the freedom of expression is also partially rooted in the Jewish foundation of the State – "and the entire dispute between the Tanaim, the Amoraim, the Gaonim and the Poskim, is in fact the words of the living God, and the Halacha includes them all; Moreover, this is the glory of the Holy Torah, whereas the Torah is read as singing, and the beauty of the song is the disparity of voices. This is the essence of music" (Aruch HaShulchan, Hoshen Mishpat, introduction). "Just as their facial features differ from one another, so their opinions are not identical, but rather they each have an opinion of their own… since Moses asked God, at death's door he said to him: oh Lord, the minds of each and all are revealed before you, and they are not one. When I pass, I plead you to appoint a leader that will be able to handle each and every one of them in accordance with his own mind" (Numbers Rabbah (Vilnius), Pinchas, Section 21;  for further detail see the dictum of Justice (his former title) M. Alon in E.A. 2/84, Neiman v. the Chairman of the Central Election Committee for the 11^th Knesset PDI 39(2) 225, 294-297 (1985); Aviad HaCohen "Freedom of Expression, Tolerance and Pluralism in Jewish Law" 45 Mincha le'Menachem (Hana Amit, Aviad Hachohen and Haim Be'er editors, 2007).
57. Hence, the freedom of expression in Israel stands on two foundations – Judaism and democracy (see the dictum of Justice (his former title) A. Barak in H.C.J. 6126/94 Senesh v. the Israel Broadcasting Authority PD 53(3) 817 (1999) (hereinafter: "re. Senesh").
58. Freedom of expression extends to artistic expression. This form of expression has unique characteristics, that require unique protection. The importance of art is in the development of human culture, and in being a means to express and execute one's inner wishes; its importance gives art its unique status. In his artistic work, the private boundaries of an artist are broken and place the artistic freedom as a social value. "Freedom of expression is the artist's freedom to open his heart, spread his wings and set his mind free" (H.C.J. 14/86 La'or v. the Council for the Review of Films and Plays PD 41(1), 421, 433 (1987). With respect to the scope of artistic freedom, it was held as follows: "Such freedom is more than the freedom to express commonly accepted opinions. It is the freedom to express deviating opinions, with which the majority disagrees. It is the freedom to not only praise the government, but also to criticize it. It is the freedom to create any work of art, whether of a divine artistic value and whether of no artistic value whatsoever, and even if it is – as the Council found – 'an offensive paste of erotica, politics and perversions of all sorts and kinds'" (ibid; on creation in Jewish law see: Alexander Ron "On Artistic Creation and Artistic Freedom" Parashat Ha'Shavua 63 (Truma, 5762)).
59. The status of artistic freedom is established, according to one doctrine, in the freedom of expression, i.e., freedom of expression in itself yields "the freedom of artistic work including literature and the various displays of visual art" (see: H.C.J. 806/88 Universal City Studios Inc. v. the Council for the Review of Films and Plays, PD 43(2) 22, 27 (1989)); according to another doctrine, the unique characteristics of the artistic expression require that artistic freedom be an independent right. "It can be seen as a standalone constitutional right. It is based in the perception of humans as autonomous creatures who are entitled to self-realization, both as creators and as consumers of art. Indeed, artistic freedom is the freedom of an artist to create. It is the freedom of choice with respect to the topic and its presentation, and the freedom of others to hear and comprehend" (H.C.J. 4804/94 Station Film Co. Ltd. v. the Council for the Review of Films and Plays, PD 50(5) 661, 677 (1997)).
60. I find no real difference between those who think that the status of the right to artistic freedom is that of a "primary right" and those who think it is merely a "secondary right" (for the distinction between a "primary right" and a "secondary right" see: Aharon Barak Proportionality – Constitutional Rights and Their Limitations 76-78 (2010) (hereinafter: "Barak, Proportionality"). Whether you support this position or the other, it is necessary to define and limit the characteristics of the right. This will be done according to the unique rationales on which it is founded. Such rationales form the "genetic code" of the right, and determine the scope of its applicability. They are conceived in the theoretical legal laboratory and move to the world of practice. The justifications can be viewed as the scalpel and hammer in the hand of the sculptor, assisting to clearly chisel the image of the right and distinguish between similar issues; "like silver touched by the silversmith – alloying and merging as he pleases" (the liturgical poem  "like substance touched by the artist", Yom Kippur prayer). In the realm of rights, the rule of "complete separation of realms" (Bavli, Brachoth 48, 2) does not apply. On the contrary, the rights are combined and integrated, sometimes to an inseparable degree. Chiseling is not an easy task, and it can occasionally upset one of the rights and its beneficiaries. The Court will not easily decide the exact scope of applicability of the right. Decisions of this kind have deep and wide impact, and may affect social life, commerce, culture, art, politics and more.

The Autobiographical Composition

61. Freedom of expression stands on three pillars: the exposure of the truth, personal wellbeing and its value in the democratic regime (see Aharon Barak "The Tradition of Freedom of expression in Israel and its Problems" Mishpatim 27, 223, 227-228 (5757)). These pillars do not equally support each and every instance of freedom of expression. Some instances are supported by all rationales; others are only sheltered by some. The strength of the rationales at the basis of each instance also varies. Examining the rationales and their strength will determine the level of protection extended to the expression. "Not all rationales [supporting the freedom of expression – N.S.] are equally present in all types of expressions. If an expression does 'not fall under' the rationales for freedom of expression, this may influence the degree of the legal protection extended thereto" (H.C.J. 606/93 Kidum Entrepreneurship and Publishing (1981) Ltd. v. Israel Broadcasting Authority, PD 48(2) 1, 12 (1994) (hereinafter: "re. Kidum"). The status of the autobiographical artistic freedom will be determined in light of the "quality" and "quantity" of rationales at its base. Prior to examining these rationales, we wish to post the following words as a guiding road sign: "The literature, painting and sculpture manifest the spiritual values which are inherent to the human soul; so long as there is a single drawing still concealed in the depth of our souls and yet unplaced on paper, art is obligated to produce it" (Rabbi Kook, Olat Reaya 2, p. 3).
62. The justification of personal wellbeing emphasizes that "without allowing people to hear and be heard, to read and to write, to speak or be silent, one’s humanity is flawed, since his spiritual and intellectual development are based on his ability to freely form his perspective" (see: H.C.J. 399/85 Kahana v. Israel Broadcasting Authority, PD 41(3) 255, 274 (1987) (hereinafter: "re: Kahana"). And elsewhere: "The importance of the principle [freedom of expression – N.S.] also lies in the protection that it extends to a distinctly private interest, i.e. the interest of each individual, by virtue of his humanity, to fully express his qualities and personal virtues; to nurture and develop its self to the maximum; to voice an opinion on any matter which he considers vital for him; in short – to speak his heart, so that life seem worthy to him (re: Kol Ha'Am p. 878). Case law further emphasized the close connection between this pillar of the freedom of expression – man's personal realization – and human dignity (see: Aharon Barak Human Dignity 717-721 (2014) (hereinafter: "Barak, Human Dignity")); it was held that "this argument [of personal wellbeing – N.S.] ties the freedom of expression to human dignity" (re. Kahana above, p. 273) and "what is human dignity without the fundamental right of a person to hear his fellow humans and make himself heard; develop his personality, form his perspective and achieve self-realization?" (P.P.A 4463/94 Golan v. Israel Prison Service PD 50(4) 136, 157 (1996)).
63. The autobiographical artistic freedom is in fact a manner of expression which materializes this justification almost in its entirety. Autobiographical writing is personal, intimate writing, which expresses the writer's life story. Such writing is a basic human need that is veiled in the hearts of many people. The execution, the relief experienced by the author when the drawing of ideas from the depths of his soul is completed, is the strongest evidence of the importance of the publication of an autobiographical composition. The expansion of the phenomenon of autobiographical writing, across all walks of life, is yet another evidence of the importance thereof to human development. We are no longer in the era when autobiographical writing is the realm of the few, those outstanding people who were lucky to describe, through the telling of their personal story, the story of their generation. Nowadays, every person with an internet connection and a keyboard can write his life story and publish it on the global network. Stories that were once secluded now move forward to the front of the stage, and stories that were previously published and famous now retreat into the background. Autobiographical writing is therefore of great importance, to the individual and society, for self-realization and the promotion of literary creation.
64. As aforesaid, the justification of the right to autobiographical creation does not end with the personal justifications for freedom of expression; societal justifications provide another plentiful source from which this right flows. Pursuant to the justification of exposure of truth "The freedom of expression must be guaranteed in order to enable the competition between various and diverse perspectives and ideas. From this competition – rather than from the dictation of a single governmental "truth" –the truth will arise, as the truth is destined to prevail in the battle of ideas" (re: Kahana, p. 273). The right to autobiographical artistic freedom assists the realization of this rationale. Seemingly, as the number of people who write their life stories will grow, human knowledge will grow respectively, as will the ability to reach the bottom of truth. Human knowledge is not equally dispersed in the town square. Groups with better exposure and accessibility to media have greater ability to communicate information. The existence of autobiographical writing will help us to break the "monopoly of knowledge" and also obtain information from non-conventional channels (for additional information see: Sonja R. West., The Story of Me: The Underprotection of Autobiographical Speech, 84(4) WASH. U.L. Rev.905, 944-948 (2006)) (hereinafter: "West").
65. The importance of autobiographical artistic freedom is also rooted in the democratic justification. "Freedom of expression is a pre-condition for the existence of democracy and its proper operation. Free voicing of opinions and their unlimited exchange between fellow men is a contitio sine qua non for the existence of social and political governance in which a citizen may fearlessly consider, through the study of information, what is required, as per his best understanding, for the benefit and wellbeing of the public and of individuals, and how the existence of the democratic governance and the political structure in which he lives can be secured… the democratic process is conditioned, as aforesaid, on the possibility to hold an open discussion of the problems on the agenda of a State, and the free exchange of opinions in respect thereof… it cannot be perceived that elections in a democratic regime be held if they are not preceded by an opportunity to exchange opinions and attempt mutual persuasion and without holding the deliberations and discussions that form public opinion, which has a vital role in every free regime. The above, as aforesaid, is as valid during elections as it is in other times" (H.C.J. 372/84 Kloppfer Nave v. the Minister of Education and Culture, PD 38(3) 233, 238-239 (1984)). The autobiographical artistic freedom cherishes the importance of the direct flow of information between the author and the public. Public channels of information are supervised by several "veto players" which prevent the free flow of information. Media, governmental censorship, the legal system and the laws, access to wealth – are just some of the barriers confronted by owners of information who seek its publication. The autobiographical artistic freedom gives importance to the direct encounter between author and readers. Furthermore, the autobiographical artistic freedom assists in making free expression more available to social and cultural minorities, which are under-represented in the central media, thus enriching the variety of voices heard in public. We have just recently witnessed the empowering and catalyst effect of autobiographical expression of experiences online on social and political revolutions in the neighboring Arab countries. This right is reinforced in this era of internet, where electronic means and media such as "Twitter", "Facebook" and blogs implement this idea in practice. Many scholars noted the connection between a wide spectrum of opinions heard in public and the existence of a lively and healthy democracy. The rules of democratic decision-making are the body; the freedom of expression is their soul. A democracy without freedom of expression is like a body without a soul. The autobiographical artistic freedom not only enables each citizen to vote and be elected, but also to influence society's cultural fabric (for an extensive review of the basis of the right to autobiographical writing, see: West, p. 948-957). Hence, the autobiographical composition is closely connected to the abovementioned three rationales of freedom of expression.
66. Its importance notwithstanding, freedom of expression, including the autobiographical artistic freedom, is not an absolute right, and it is not immune to restriction. "The freedom of expression and the artistic freedom are not the only values to be considered. A democratic society is based on a variety of values and principles, of which freedom of expression and artistic freedom are just a part of. The implementation of these diverse values and principles naturally mandates the restriction of the protection extended to the freedom of expression and the artistic freedom, to the scope that is required to protect such values and principles. My freedom of movement stops where your nose begins; my freedom of expression does not justify slander or libel against another person; it does not justify disclosing top state secrets or disturbing the peace; freedom of expression is not the freedom to give false testimony in court" (re: Senesh, p. 830). With this warning in our saddlebag, we will now review the right that collides with the autobiographical artistic freedom in the Appeal at bar – the right to privacy. 

The Right to Privacy

67.The right to privacy is a constitutional right. Section 7 of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty instructs that:

“(a) All persons have the right to privacy and to intimacy.

(b) There shall be no entry into the private premises of a person who has not consented thereto.

(c) No search shall be conducted on the private premises of a person, nor in the body or personal effects.

(d) There shall be no violation of the confidentiality of conversation, or of the writings or records of a person.”

The status of the right to privacy is also expressed in the case law of the Supreme Court as “one of the freedoms that shape the character of the regime in Israel as a democratic regime, and one of the supreme rights that establish the dignity and liberty to which a person is entitled as a person, as a value in itself” (Cr.A. 5026/97 Gilam v. The State of Israel (June 13, 1999) (hereinafter: “re. Gilam”); for further details, see HCJ 8070/98 The Association for Civil Rights in Israel v. The Ministry of the Interior, PDI 58(4) 842 (2004)).

68.The proper balance between the right to privacy and other rights was determined by the legislature in the Protection of Privacy Law. With respect to the interpretation of the act, case law has already been established whereby laws that were passed before the enactment of the basic laws will be interpreted in the spirit of the provisions of the basic law. “This law (Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty – N.S.) granted a super-statutory constitutional status to the right to privacy. This status should affect the interpretation of all of the laws, both those passed before the legislation of the basic law and those legislated thereafter. This constitutional status of the right to privacy should also affect the interpretation of the Protection of Privacy Law” (HCJ 6650/04 Jane Doe v. The Netanya Regional Rabbinical Court, PDI 61(1) 581, 602 (2006) (hereinafter: “re. Jane Doe”); for further details see F.Cr.H 2316/95 Ganimat v. The State of Israel, PDI 49(4) 589 (1995)).

69.The law’s protection of the right to privacy is relatively new. It began approx. one hundred years ago.The starting point of the discussion regarding the right to privacy, its status and its justifications was expressed in an important article from the beginning of the last century, in which Justices Warren and Brandeis pointed to the existence of the right to privacy (Samuel Warren & Louis Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 H. L. R. 193 (1890) (hereinafter: “The Right to Privacy”). The innovation of the authors was not reflected in the creation of a right “ex nihilo”, but rather in conceptualizing its various appearances in legislation. This approach does not recognize the benefit inherent in defining privacy as an independent right. Privacy is limited to how it was defined in legislation and in case law, which must be interpreted narrowly in order to prevent double protection in view of the basic assumption that the legislature does not waste ink. A similar approach was initially established in the case law of the Supreme Court: “The Protection of Privacy Law is intended to create and define new boundaries, and there was therefore, no need to redefine existing offences as prohibited acts… why would the legislature deem fit to once again prohibit in later legislation acts of violence that have already been determined as criminal offences in the existing penal law, only to include them in the definition of a new prohibited act, alongside which a maximum penalty is set, which does not exceed the penalty for any one of the existing violent offences. This is double legislation, which is entirely unnecessary” (see the opinion of Justice (former title) M. Shamgar FH 9/83 The Military Appeals Court v. Vaknin, PDI 42(3) 837, 853 (1988); for further details see L.Cr.A 9818/01 Biton v. Sultan, PDI 59(6) 554 (2005)). The concept that deems the right to privacy as a right limited solely to its appearances in legislation and to a narrow interpretation thereof, did not last forever. The right to privacy soon acquired a permanent status in the family of constitutional rights. Buds of this concept are found in the opinion of Justice (former title) A. Barak in HCJ 2481/93 Dayan v. Major General Wilk, Jerusalem District Commander, PDI 48(2) 456 (1994) (hereinafter: “re. Dayan”): “Every person in Israel is ‘entitled to privacy’ (Section 7(a) of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty)… now that is has been afforded a statutory constitutional basis, it must be interpreted from a ‘broad perspective’ ‘and with the understanding that we are concerned with a provision that determines ways of life’… a constitutional provision must be interpreted ‘with a broad outlook, and not technically’… hence the approach – which is accepted in enlightened democratic countries – that constitutional provisions must be interpreted ‘generously’… with a substantive approach and not a ‘legalistic’ approach… with a pertinent approach and not a ‘technical’ or ‘pedantic’ approach… against the background of this approach it may be ruled that the constitutional right to privacy extends, inter alia – and without any attempt to delimit the right with all of its aspects – to a person’s right to conduct the way of life he wishes behind closed doors, without outside interference. A person’s home is his castle, and within its confines he is entitled to be left to his own devices, for development of the autonomy of his will” (ibid, on page 470).

70.Indeed, “The kids which you left have become goats with horns” (Bavli, Brachot 63 p. A), the buds sprouted, and received precise and clear expression in the opinion of Justice (former title) A. Barak in re. Jane Doe (above, on pages 595-597): “The right to privacy is one of the most important human rights in Israel… its roots are deeply embedded in our Jewish heritage… it is therefore called for by the values of Israel as both a Jewish and democratic state. It is recognized by Israeli common law as a human right… in 1981 the Protection of Privacy Law was enacted. Privacy was defined in the law (Section 2) in a manner which does not ‘cover’ all accepted forms of privacy. With respect to a violation of privacy over and above the definition in the law, Israeli common law continues to apply… in 1992, a material change occurred in the status of the right to privacy… Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty explicitly recognized a constitutional right to privacy… a constitutional right to privacy was thus recognized at a broader scope than the scope of privacy in the Protection of Privacy Law. Indeed, by virtue of the basic law, privacy became a super-statutory constitutional right… any and all government authorities – including any court and tribunal in the state – must honor it”.

71.The right to privacy is a constitutional right. It must be interpreted in a “generous and broad” manner, according to its justifications, in order to realize the purposes underlying it. However, the scope of the protection of privacy will not be determined broadly or narrowly but rather precisely. For the purpose of balancing between clashing rights, when the court is faced with a decision which calls for the drawing of the exact outlines of the rights, the court will employ strict interpretation, examining which of the rationales realized in the manifestations of the rights before it must be preferred (see: Aharon Barak, Interpretation in Law, Vol. 3: Constitutional Interpretation 83-84 (1993) (“Interpretation in Law (Constitutional Interpretation); and – Aharon Barak, Proportionality in Law 94-97 (2010)). The accepted opinion in our law is that the scope of the constitutional right should not be reduced in order to take into consideration the collective or the right of others. These will be taken into account at the following stages of the constitutional analysis (ibid). Israeli law therefore distinguishes between the application of the right and its protection. The mere application of the right does not necessarily guarantee a comprehensive protection of it. Application is one thing and protection another. Broad interpretation does not equal full protection.

The Right to Privacy – Scope

72.The ambiguity of the right to privacy is well-known (see for example: Re’em Segev “Privacy, its Significance and Importance” Privacy in an Era of Change 25, 26 (Tehilla Shwartz Altshuler editor, 2012) and the authorities therein) (hereinafter: Segev “Privacy, its Significance and Importance””). This ambiguity, which in the opinion of some of the scholars is derived from the social character of the right and from its technological context, makes it difficult to define the exact boundaries of privacy (see for example: Michael Birnhack “Control and Consent: The Theoretical Basis of the Right to Privacy” Mishpat Umimshal 11 9, 13-19 (2008) (hereinafter: “Control and Consent”)). “The right to privacy is a complex right, whose boundaries are not easily determined” (see HCJ 1435/03 Jane Doe v. The Haifa Civil Service Disciplinary Court, PDI 58(1) 529, 539 (2003)).

73.In this appeal, we are exempt from deciding the definition of the exact boundaries of the right to privacy. We are concerned – in the book at bar – with the core of the right to privacy. “With respect to situations of ‘classic privacy’, there appears to be broad consent. For example, we agree that it is appropriate to protect the acts of a person in his own home, the content of telephone conversations or of sealed envelopes, and certain types of information, such as our medical condition, our sex life, … when an outside agent intervenes without our permission in any of the above, we feel that our privacy has been violated” (see ‘Control and Consent’ above, on page 13).

The Justifications for the Right to Privacy

74.Many justifications have been given in literature and case law for the right to privacy. There are those that rest on a personal basis and those that are based on social values. These justifications can be split into two separate categories: the first, intrinsic-inherent justifications; the second, instrumental-purposeful justifications. The distinction between the types of justifications is clear: the intrinsic justification deems the right as a purpose in itself; the instrumental justification deems the right as a means of achieving a nobler purpose.

The Intrinsic Justification

75.The intrinsic justification for privacy asserts that a violation of privacy is equal to a violation of a person’s dignity, welfare and his ability of self-realization. This outlook is based on the moral theory of the philosopher Immanuel Kant. According to Kant, man exists as an end in himself. Use of man as an object for the purpose of achieving another purpose constitutes a violation of his dignity:

“Man, and in general every rational being, exists as an end in himself and not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will. He must in all his actions, whether they are directed to himself or to other rational beings, always be viewed at the same time as an end… Persons are, therefore, not merely subjective ends, whose existence as an effect of our actions has a value for us; but such beings are objective ends, i.e., exist as ends in themselves.” (Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, 428 (H. J. Paton trans., 1964)).

76.A person is not an “object”; he should not be used as a means to achieve other purposes. A person has emotions, feelings and desires. Blatantly ignoring these and crudely trampling them is intolerable. The mere violation of a person’s privacy is the prohibited act. Intrusion into and exposure of the private space renders the person a means for fulfilling the purposes of the exposer and intruder. Privacy is the heart and core of human autonomy. This is the space in which everything dear to a person, his emotions, his inner desires, his innermost secrets, are found; all of these are part of the heart and core of the right to privacy. Violation of these is a grave violation of the person’s dignity. In the words of the scholar Bloustein:

“The injury is to our individuality, to our dignity as individuals, and the legal remedy represents a social vindication of the human spirit thus threatened rather than a recompense for the loss suffered.” (Edward J. Bloustein, Privacy as an Aspect of Human Dignity: An Answer to Dean Prosser, 39 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 962, 1003 (1964) (hereinafter: “Bloustein”).

And in the words of the scholar Benn:

“To conceive someone as a person is to see him as actually a chooser, as one attempting to steer his course through the world, adjusting his behavior, as his appreciation of the world changes, and correcting course as he perceives his errors. It is to understand that his life is for him a kind of enterprise, like one’s own… To respect someone as a person is to concede that one ought to take the account of the way in which his enterprise might be affected by one’s own decisions. By the principle of respect for persons, then, I mean the principle that every human being, insofar as he is qualified as a person, is entitled to this minimal degree of consideration” (Stanley I. Benn, Freedom, and Respect for Persons, in Privacy & Personality 1, 9 (J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman eds., 2009)).

77.Indeed, the right to privacy is derived from the right to dignity and is closely related to it. “The right to privacy therefore concerns the person’s personal interest in developing his autonomy, his peace of mind, his right to be with himself and his right to dignity and liberty” (see C.A. 8483/02 Aloniel Ltd. v. McDonald, PDI 58(4) 314, paragraph 33 of the judgment of Justice E. Rivlin (March 30, 2004)); for further details see re. Jane Doe above in paragraph 10 of the judgment of Chief Justice A. Barak; Ruth Gavison “The Right to Privacy and Dignity”, Human Rights in Israel – An Essay Collection in Memory of H. Shelah 61 (1988)).

Instrumental Justifications

78.Further justifications deem the right to privacy as a means to achieve substantive purposes. The right to privacy is perceived as the basis of the individual’s wellbeing; as vital to ensuring relationships of trust between people, and particularly intimate relationships; as a means of ensuring proper community life; as a basis for the existence of a democratic regime.

79.Several theories point to the fact that privacy is important for the purpose of improving people’s personal wellbeing, and for the possibility of maximum self-fulfillment. Private space gives a person the possibility to meditate and challenge the common world view of the society to which he belongs. Private space allows a person to design his private home as he wishes. This space sometimes expresses the innermost secrets that a person, for his own reasons, does not wish to publicly reveal. A person is entitled to the possibility of building his world as he wishes, which cannot be done when he is being watched from all around. The social view is sometimes paralyzing, preventing the individual from undertaking original and bold action. Private space is where the individual can break the fixed social boundaries. Violating the private space denies the individual the possibility of creating a unique and individual personal world. Unique literary expression of this concept is found in George Orwell’s book “1984”, which has become one of the world literature’s invaluable assets. See the opinion of Justice Brandeis:

“The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings, and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men.” (Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1928).

And in the words of the scholar Bloustein:

“The man who is compelled to live every minute of his life among others and whose every need, thought, desire, fancy or gratification is subject to public scrutiny, has been deprived of his individuality… Such an individual merges with the mass. His opinions, being public, tend never to be different; his aspirations, being known, tend always to be conventionally accepted ones” (Bloustein, 1003).

For further details on the issue of personal wellbeing, see: R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417. For further authorities, see: Michael Birnhack, Private Space: Privacy, Law & Technology 117-120 (5771) (hereinafter: “Birnhack, Private Space”).

80.A violation of privacy is a violation of personal autonomy. Tearing down the screen separating the private and the public realms violates a person’s right to conduct his life as he wishes. Some wish to conduct their liveson the radio waves, in the ‘big brother house’, or on the pages of the newspaper; others wish to live their lives peacefully and modestly, far from the spotlight, from the public eye, and from the lens of the camera. Exposure of privacy by another violates a person’s right to conduct his life as he wishes. “…The right to privacy draws the line between the individual and the public, between ‘me’ and society. It delineates a defined area in which the individual is left alone, to develop his ‘self’, without the intervention of others…” (re. Dayan above, on page 471).

“Liberty includes the right to live as one will, so long as that will does not interfere with the rights of another or of the public. One may desire to live a life of seclusion; another may desire to live a life of publicity; still another may wish to live a life of privacy as to certain matters, and of publicity as to others. One may wish to live a life of toil, where his work is of a nature that keeps him constantly before the public gaze, while another may wish to live a life of research and contemplation, only moving before the public at such times and under such circumstances as may be necessary to his actual existence. Each is entitled to a liberty of choice as to his manner of life, and neither an individual nor the public has a right to arbitrarily take away from this liberty” (Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Co., 50 S.E. 68, 71 (Ga 1905)).

81.Note, the freedom of expression and the right to privacy do not merely clash; they also complement one another. A violation of privacy is sometimes also equal to a violation of the freedom of expression. The existence of a protected private space, to which the individual may withdraw, be alone, is sometimes a condition to the existence of creative activity. Creativity, which deviates from the existing social order, struggles to emerge under the penetrating gaze of the community. The screen of privacy protects the existence of the internal world. This world will be exposed to the audience when the screen goes up. Premature exposure and without consent of the unfinished product, will lead to failure; or as in the theatre world, will lead to harsh reviews which might leave the creative work in its unripe stage, and prevent its coming to fruition. Personal space is vital for the development and emergence of different ideas in the public realm. Individuals with free opinions are an essential ingredient for the existence of democracy. Without freedom of thought, made possible where there is a personal space, a healthy society cannot be developed. Indeed, the right to privacy is not necessarily contrary to the freedom of expression and creation, it also serves them.

82.The Torah describes the public setting in which the first Tablets of Stone [Luchot HaBrit] were given, and the breakage; and the second tablets that were given to Moshe Rabbeinu (Moses) alone, and were a masterpiece. The first tablets were given “amid great pomp and circumstance” (Rashi, Shemot 34, C) on Mount Sinai in front of the entire Jewish nation. The second tablets were given to Moshe Rabbeinu in silence: “No man may ascend with you nor may anyone be seen on the entire mountain. Even the flock and the cattle may not graze facing that mountain” (Shemot 34, C). It was stated thereon in Midrash Tanchuma ((Warsaw) Ki Tisa, 31): “The first tablets were given in public, and therefore the evil eye had control over them and they were broken, and here G-d told him there is nothing better than modesty”. We can see that modesty and personal space may produce great creation. The creation is not necessarily the result of the freedom of expression. It is actually the scaling down, the privacy, the modesty, that may be fertile ground for growth and renewal. The secret of the dialogue and actions taken between is the proof. Needless to say, humans, the crown of creation, are the result of the most intimate relationships. This teaches us that infinite exposure is not always a guarantee for creation; on the contrary, there are concealed areas that we must strictly preserve as such, not only as protection against harm, but in order to ensure productivity, creation and fulfillment. “And it is written ‘with the modest is wisdom’ (Mishlei 11, B), since wisdom connects two things, and it is the primordial power, as is known, and through this things change from one state to another, and this is the meaning of the verse ‘with the modest is wisdom’. Therefore, when you want to plant a seed and want it to change its form, you conceal it and insert it into the ground, so that it may arrive at its primordial state, which is wisdom, as is recalled” (Torat Hamaggid, Torah, Parashat Balak).

83.Harav Kook (Orot Hakodesh C, Part Two, Vol. Three, Title E) addresses the required balance between a person’s need to be alone and his need for company: “Out of these two opposing judgments, the noble person must stand in the midst of two tendencies: to separate himself and to draw close. With this, he attains conceptual purity, on the one hand, and the natural strength that exists in simplicity and natural freshness, on the other”. Harav Kook further eloquently writes in his essay “A time to be silent and a time to speak” (Orot Hakodesh, Part Two, Vol.  Three, Title H): “The structures of a person’s spirit suffer great destruction when the inner light of “a time to be silent” appears, when the holy and supernal muteness in the splendor of its glory and the gravity of its burden fills his entire soul. If he rebels against it and breaches it, this rebellion against the sovereignty of silence destroys all of its structures, all of the treasury of innocence and uprightness, of profundity and supernal connection, these are all shattered. And he will later need, if he wishes to build his ruins, to reestablish everything anew, and the wise person will be silent at that time. However, if a person gives silence its due when it first appears, it will perform its duty, establish its muteness, penetrate in its profundity and reach the perplexities of its depths, from which it will bring forth mighty foliage and branches with the power of great and fresh blossoming. The leaves will be filled with power and the expression of his lips will emerge. Then the “time to speak” will begin in its glorious majesty and the spirit of silence will be the angel that acts upon the outpouring of speech, which will flow like streams, with great abundance and all beauty. ‘[I] create the speech of the lips. Peace, peace, to the distant and to the near,’ says Hashem, ‘and I will heal him’.  Its fruit will be for food and its leaf for healing, freeing the mouth of the mute”.

84.The democratic regime also requires the existence of the right to privacy. The existence of a private living space that is not under the beady eye of the state is vital to the existence of a pluralistic society which gives a stage to the variety of voices amongst it. Political criticism will not emerge where human lives are monitored by various means. The existence of a private space is essential for the development of unique positions which can later gain political expression. This position was recognized in the past by this court, which held that the right to privacy is “one of the freedoms that shape the character of the regime in Israel as a democratic regime” (see Paragraph 9 of the judgment of Justice H. Ariel in re. Gilam; see also: Campbell v MGN Ltd. [2004] UKHL 22 (hereinafter: “re. Campbell”). For an extensive review see: Annabelle Lever, Privacy Rights and Democracy: A Contradiction in Terms? 5 Contemporary Political Theory142 (2006)). And note, the right to privacy does not merely serve the person as a person. It has a broad social significance, over and above the right of the individual. Its value is great and important for the mere existence of human society.

The Right to Privacy and Intimate Relationships

85.Further justification for the right to privacy is found on another level of the human existence – interpersonal relationships. “It is not good that man be alone” (Bereishit B, 18); “human beings are by nature political animals” (Aristotle, Politics, Book A, 27-28 (Rachel Zelnick-Abramovitz Editor, Nurit Karshon translator, 2009)); “either companionship or death” (Bavli, Taanit 23, p.1). These are a few of the texts written throughout the generations to describe the importance of relationships in the lives of humans. Each one of us is involved in many relationships: family; work; friends; acquaintances; neighbors; service providers. All of the above and many others encircle and surround our daily routine. Just as their facial features differ, their relationships differ. And in the case at bar: a father-son relationship does not resemble a relationship between husband and wife; between friends, between distant and close acquaintances; etc.

86.There are “certain relationships that require background conditions of privacy to enable their optimal existence” (Birnhack, Private Space above, on page 120). Deep friendships and connections between couples are built and based on keeping the most intimate of secrets. A world in which privacy is trampled and secrets become common is a world in which people will refuse to bare their soul to their friends for fear of it being exposed to the entire world. The same is true to professional relationships and friendships, a fortiori with respect to romantic relationships. In such relationships, couples mutually reveal to one another their most secret desires, wishes and aspirations. A partner also reveals to his partner his positions and opinions regarding work colleagues, family members, friends and previous partners. This sensitive information is given to the other partner on a silver platter, under the assumption that he will act as a loyal ally and confidant. This is the “unwritten” contract between partners in a long-term romantic relationship. These are the “terms of employment”. Any sensible person knows this. “The growth of a couple’s relationship… needs, inter alia, the couple’s privacy from the outside world. The privacy enables intimacy, which is a necessary condition for a couple’s relationship… the privacy allows trust between the couple and creates the space… where they can be authentic and gain each other’s support” (Birnhack, Private Space above, on page 121; for further references, see: Segev, Privacy, its Significance and Importance above, on pages 83-86).

87.A special place is kept for intimate long-term relationships between couples, and particularly for married life. The commitment created between two spouses is not limited to economic arrangements. These constitute the body of the marriage, while the trust and love create its soul. Marriage is based on “love, friendship, peace and companionship”. One acts as the other’s “confidant”. The self-sacrifice, the strong friendship, the endless empathy, these are the essence of married life. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and cling to his wife and they shall become one flesh” (Bereishit B, 24). The separateness becomes oneness. The day-to-day challenges that couples face, maintaining the relationship, household, professional career and childrearing, all constitute a quasi- “melting pot” for this personality merger. Many studies have indicated that the mental identity of spouses changes with time. The partners go from separate beings to a single family unit (see, for example: Milton C. Regan, Family Law and the Pursuit of Intimacy 147 (1993)). Spouses are exposed to one another, in happiness and in sadness, in times of hardship and crisis, as well as in times of success and comfort. They share with one another their thoughts and feelings about what goes on around them. In many relationships, spouses read one another, like an open book - “no secrets escape them”. True in this regard are the words appearing in the traditional deed of conditions: “and from this point forth, the said couple will act jointly with love and affection, and will not conceal or hide or lock away from one another…” (Q&A Nachlat Shiva, Shtarot, Part I). It would not be superfluous to note in this context the degree of closeness between a husband and wife, inter alia, in relation to the laws of testimony (disqualification of a husband’s testimony also disqualifies the wife’s testimony) and the laws of agency (a husband is appointed as an agent for his wife for things that others cannot do as her agent). I will also mention the provisions of Section 3 of the Evidence Ordinance [New Version], 5731-1971 that “In a criminal trial, one spouse is not competent to testify against the other”.

88.The right to privacy in its romantic form is in fact the right of the spouse not to be exploited by his spouse. A situation in which one spouse reveals to the other spouse everything that is on his mind, and the other spouse uses the information for his own purposes – is intolerable. A legal regime that does not prevent this does not protect the unwritten contract of marriage. The privileges between various individuals in society are regulated in legislation. Is it conceivable that the law, which regulates attorney-client relations; doctor-patient relations; psychologist-patient relations; bank-customer relations; will not extend its protection and defend the most sensitive relationship in a person’s life – between man and wife, between spouses?! (For further details, see: Hanoch Dagan & Carolyn J. Frantz, Properties of Marriage 104 Colum. L. Rev. 75, 82-83 (2004) and the authorities appearing therein). It is for good reason that the “public hearing” principle which was set forth in Section 68(a) of the Courts Law [Consolidated Version], 5744-1984, whereby “court hearings will be open to the public”, retreats in “family matters, within the meaning thereof in the Family Court Law, 5755-1995”, pursuant to the provisions therein in Section 68(e)(1).

89.The culmination of the joint spousal relationship is embodied in long-term relationships, with a joint economic regime, regardless of whether we are concerned with the institution of marriage or with common-law partners. These relationships include an increased duty of care vis-à-vis the joint intimate space of the couple. Even romantic relationships that are not characterized by a full economic partnership establish an individual ‘fiduciary duty’ to protect the spouse’s intimate space. The opening of the intimate space to the other partner occurs in the early stages of the relationship. The protection of this space will emerge at the initial stages of the intimate relationship.

90.These are the main justifications for the right to privacy. However, before we begin discussing the proper balance, we will take a look at comparative law for support in deciding the legal issue that was placed at the center of the appeal at bar.

English Law

91.In the past decade, the right to privacy has acquired a place of honor in English case law. In the past, the only grounds for a suit for a violation of the right to privacy was a breach of confidence, which requires three separate elements to be proven: (1) the nature of the information that was revealed mandates protection of its confidentiality; (2) the information was transferred under circumstances which establish a duty of confidence; (3) misuse or unauthorized use of the information (for further details, see: The Law of Privacy and the Media 163-222 (Mark Warby, Nicole Morehman and Iain Christie eds., 2011 (hereinafter: “The Law of Privacy and the Media”)). However, in 2008, the House of Lords adopted, in re. Douglas v. Hello! Ltd. [2008] 1 A.C. 1 (H.L. 2007) (appeal taken from Eng.), an additional independent cause of: ‘misuse of private information’. While the cause of breach of confidence emphasizes the breach of the confidential relationship between the parties, the cause of misuse of private information “highlights” the violation of privacy even without the existence of a confidential relationship. See Paragraph 51 of the opinion of Lord Hoffmann in re. Campbell (above):

“The new approach takes a different view of the underlying value which the law protects. Instead of the cause of action being based upon the duty of good faith applicable to confidential personal information and trade secrets alike, it focuses upon the protection of human autonomy and dignity - the right to control the dissemination of information about one's private life and the right to the esteem and respect of other people.”

92.The said legal development expresses the rise of the importance of the right to privacy in English law. This right, which was defined, in practice, as a right pertaining to an ‘in personam’ relationship became an ‘in rem’ right. The cause of ‘misuse of private information’ requires the following two conditions to be proven: (1) the information that was misused is indeed information that is protected by the right to privacy, as it appears in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the “European Convention for Human Rights”); (2) examination of the balance between the freedom of expression and the right to privacy, as they appear in the European Convention for Human Rights, tips the scale in the direction of the right to privacy (see, for example: re. Campbell above and: The Law of Privacy and the Media above, 226).

93.In the said re. Campbell, the House of Lords required The Mirror magazine to pay model Naomi Campbell damages following publications regarding drug rehabilitation treatments which she underwent – a publication that amounts to a violation of her privacy. The judgment discusses at length the nature of the cause of ‘misuse of private information’. With regards to the first condition, which concerns the definition of the information that is protected by the right to privacy, the House of Lords referred to the “reasonable person” test, which was determined around a decade prior thereto in re. ABC, in which the motion of a plant owner to identify the methods of killing opossums at his plant as information protected by the right to privacy was denied:

“There is no bright line which can be drawn between what is private and what is not. Use of the term ‘public’ is often a convenient method of contrast, but there is a large area in between what is necessarily public and what is necessarily private. An activity is not private simply because it is not done in public. It does not suffice to make an act private that, because it occurs on private property, it has such measure of protection from the public gaze as the characteristics of the property, the nature of the activity, the locality, and the disposition of the property owner combine to afford. Certain kinds of information about a person, such as information relating to health, personal relationships, or finances, may be easy to identify as private; as may certain kinds of activity, which a reasonable person, applying contemporary standards of morals and behavior, would understand to be meant to be unobserved. The requirement that disclosure or observation of information or conduct would be highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities is in many circumstances a useful practical test of what is private. (Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 63).

[Emphasis added – N.S.].

94.On a side note, we will mention that the same test was adopted in the case law in New Zealand (see, for example: P v D [2000] 2 NZLR 591) and it is also supported in academic literature (see, for example: William L. Prosser, Privacy, 48 Cal. L. Rev. 383, 396-397 (1960)). Moreover, see Paragraphs 20-21 of the opinion of Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead in re. Campbell, in which it was held that in terms of the question of whether the information is protected under the right to privacy, the rights of others or other interests that may be harmed due to prevention of the publication should not be taken into account. These will be considered at the stage of the balancing of the rights. The guiding question at the initial stage is whether the injured party had a “reasonable expectation of privacy” with respect to the facts that were exposed:

“20. … article 10(2), like article 8(2) [of the European Convention for Human Rights – N.S.] recognizes there are occasions when protection of the rights of others may make it necessary for freedom of expression to give way. When both these articles are engaged a difficult question of proportionality may arise. This question is distinct from the initial question of whether the published information engaged article 8 at all by being within the sphere of the complainant's private or family life.

21. Accordingly, in deciding what was the ambit of an individual's 'private life' in particular circumstances courts need to be on guard against using as a touchstone a test which brings into account considerations which should more properly be considered at the later stage of proportionality. Essentially the touchstone of private life is whether in respect of the disclosed facts the person in question had a reasonable expectation of privacy”.

[Emphasis added – N.S.]

95.It was further held in re. Campbell that the manner in which the clashing rights will be balanced will be decided in each case on its merits. Freedom of expression does not prevail in principle over the right to privacy. It is necessary to meticulously examine the clashing rights in each and every case, and to refrain from determining a generic hierarchy between the two rights (see, for example: In re S [2004] Fam 43 (C.A. 2003)). In balancing between the two rights, i.e. the protection of privacy on the one hand, and the freedom of expression on the other, it is necessary to examine whether the infringement of privacy is supported by the existence of a ‘sufficient public interest’. Against the background of the aforesaid, it appears that reporting on a private person who is undergoing rehabilitation treatments, although they are a public figure, does not fulfill the said condition:

“I shall first consider the relationship between the freedom of the press and the common law right of the individual to protect personal information. Both reflect important civilized values, but, as often happens, neither can be given effect in full measure without restricting the other. How are they to be reconciled in a particular case? There is in my view no question of automatic priority. Nor is there a presumption in favor of one rather than the other. The question is rather the extent to which it is necessary to qualify the one right in order to protect the underlying value which is protected by the other. If one takes this approach, there is often no real conflict. Take the example I have just given of the ordinary citizen whose attendance at NA is publicized in his local newspaper. The violation of the citizen's autonomy, dignity and self-esteem is plain and obvious. Do the civil and political values which underlie press freedom make it necessary to deny the citizen the right to protect such personal information? Not at all. While there is no contrary public interest recognized and protected by the law, the press is free to publish anything it likes. Subject to the law of defamation, it does not matter how trivial, spiteful or offensive the publication may be. But when press freedom comes into conflict with another interest protected by the law, the question is whether there is a sufficient public interest in that particular publication to justify curtailment of the conflicting right. In the example I have given, there is no public interest whatsoever in publishing to the world the fact that the citizen has a drug dependency. The freedom to make such a statement weighs little in the balance against the privacy of personal information”.

(Re. Campbell above, in Paragraphs 55-56 of Lord Hoffmann’s judgment).

[Emphasis added – N.S.].

In other words:

“The weight to be attached to these various considerations is a matter of fact and degree. Not every statement about a person's health will carry the badge of confidentiality or risk doing harm to that person's physical or moral integrity. The privacy interest in the fact that a public figure has a cold or a broken leg is unlikely to be strong enough to justify restricting the press’s freedom to report it.”

(Ibid, in Paragraph 157 of the judgment of the Baroness Hale of Richmond).

96.Re. McKennitt, the circumstances of which are relevant to the appeal at bar, discussed the suit of Ms. McKennitt, a Canadian folk singer, whose main claims were based on an infringement of her privacy (see Mckennitt v. Ash [2008] QB 73 (C.A. 2006) (hereinafter: “re. Mckennitt”)). In 2005 (before the House of Lords adopted, as stated in Paragraph 91 above, an additional independent cause of ‘misuse of private information’), the singer’s friend published a book which exposed extensive parts of her private life, including: details regarding her relations with her late fiancé, her health, and details about her sex life. It was ruled that because of the trust relationship that prevailed between the singer and her friend, the publication of the book fell under the duty of confidence (the ‘breach of confidence’), and that it fulfilled the following three elements: (1) a friendship trust relationship existed between the parties; (2) the nature of the information that was published mandates maintaining its confidentiality; (3) misuse and unauthorized use was made of the information.

97.However, in another case, English case law recognized ‘the right to tell one’s own story’ where the information is “joint” and was acquired in an experience common to the two partners. A v B [2003] Q.B. 195 (C.A. 2002) (hereinafter: re. A v B). At the center of the case was a famous soccer player who had casual extramarital sexual relations with two women, and petitioned against a newspaper article based on their testimonies. It was ruled that the women have the right to publish their story, and it prevails over the soccer player’s right to prevent the publication. The freedom of expression was preferred over the right to privacy. The main grounds for dismissing the soccer player’s petition were based on the short acquaintanceship between the couple, which did not establish for any one of the parties an expectation of a ‘fiduciary duty’ (ibid, in Paragraph xi):

“The fact that the confidence was a shared confidence which only one of the parties wishes to preserve does not extinguish the other party’s right to have the confidence respected, but it does undermine that right. While recognizing the special status of a lawful marriage under our law, the courts, for present purposes, have to recognize and give appropriate weight to the extensive range of relationships which now exist. Obviously, the more stable the relationship the greater will be the significance which is attached to it”.

[Emphasis added – N.S.].

98.Thus, in re. McKennitt above, the court distinguished the case before it from the A v B case, ruling that the latter concerned a casual sexual relationship, and as such does not prevent either one of the partners from describing his story at the expense of the other party. However, it was clarified that in a stable and lasting relationship, by virtue of which a ‘duty of confidence’ arises, the right to privacy will prevail over the freedom of expression:

“…the relationship between Ms. Mckennitt and Ms. Ash…was miles away from the relationship between A and C and D. In the preceding paragraph I deliberately and not merely conventionally described the latter as a relationship of casual sex. A could not have thought, and did not say, that when he picked the woman up they realized that they were entering into a relationship of confidence with him …” (Paragraph 30).

99.On a side note we will point out that the fundamental position of the English legal system with respect to the status and scope of the right to privacy was adopted, with minor changes, by other common law courts (see, for example: Canada – Aubry v Les Éditions Vice Versa Inc [1998] 1 SCR 591; New Zealand – Hosking v Runting [2005] 1 NZLR 1).

The European Court of Human Rights 

100.‘Privacy’ law developed in English law under the patronage of the European Convention for Human Rights and its interpretation by the European Court of Human Rights. It is only natural that we examine the position of the ‘bride’ in the issue laid before us.

101.Re. Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08 ECHR 2012 (hereinafter: “re. Von Hannover”) concerned the claim of several members of the Monaco royal family against a German newspaper which published their pictures while they were on a private vacation. It was ruled that in the clash between the freedom of expression and the right to privacy, it is necessary to consider the following criteria: (1) the extent of the contribution to public debate; (2) whether the person is a public or private figure; (3) the conduct of the person with respect to violation of his privacy prior to the publication; (4) the content, form and consequences of the publication; (5) the circumstances in which the information was obtained.

102.We will now explore the nature of these criteria: (1) it was ruled that the contribution to public debate is not limited to political matters or to matters pertaining to crime and corruption. Information that is relevant to the field of entertainment and sport also contributes to public debate. However, rumors regarding marital difficulties of a public figure or financial difficulties of a person from the field of entertainment are not protected by this defense; (2) it was ruled that reporting on a person holding a public position is not similar to reporting on a private person. While reporting on a public figure is indeed essential to the existence of a democratic society, reporting on a private person is not required to such an extent; (3) it was ruled that past cooperation of the subject of the publication with the media will work against him. However, not all cooperation with the media can serve as an argument that legitimizes the publication; (4) and (5) it was ruled that the other elements serve as indicators that attest to the extent of the violation. Thus, for example, a publication in a national newspaper is in no way similar to a publication in a journal intended only for workers of a certain sector. 

103.In re. Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08 ECHR 2012, a similar suit was heard regarding the publication of a report on the arrest of a German celebrity. The European court reiterated the tests determined in re. Von Hannover above, stating (in Paragraph 93) that in balancing between the rights, both the manner in which the information reached the publishing party and the extent of its credibility must be addressed.

Continental Law

104.The German legal system developed a three-stage test in order to handle situations in which it is alleged that the right of a person to privacy has been violated. First, the extent of the violation of privacy is examined; second, the justifications for the violation are examined, for example: public interest and the consent of the subject of the publication; third, an examination is carried out of the proper balance between the violation of privacy and the right exercised, while addressing the manner and scope of the publication and subjective matters (such as: intention to harm). However, insofar as the violation of privacy touches on the “core of human life”, the said balancing will not be conducted at all, and the publication will be prohibited (for an extensive description regarding the development of the German law and further authorities, see: Paul M. Schwartz & Karl-Nikolaus Peifer, Prosser's Privacy and the German Right of Personality: Are Four Privacy Torts Better than One Unitary Concept?, 98 Cal. L. Rev. 1925 (2010) (hereinafter: “Prosser’s Privacy”). Translations of the judgments are taken from this article). As a consequence, a violation of the core of the right to privacy will not be allowed, even where it is balanced against a broad public interest:

“Even serious public interests cannot justify encroachments of this area; an evaluation according to the principle of proportionality does not take place” (BVerfGE 80, 367 (1998) NJW 1990 563)”.

105.In 2008, the German Federal Constitutional Court issued a judgment in a similar case to the case at bar: (BVerfGE 119, 1 (Ger.) 61 NJW 39 (2008) (Ger.)) (a detailed description of the judgment appears in Prosser’s Privacy above on pages 1932-1937). According to the facts of the judgment, Maxim Biller (hereinafter: “Biller”) published, in 2003, a novel revolving around a romance between an author by the name of ‘Adam’ and an actress by the name of ‘Esra’. The novel describes the gamut of difficulties faced by the couple, and references, inter alia, the character of ‘Esra’s’ family and her fatalistic personality, including: her mother’s arrogant character; details regarding her daughter who was born from her first marriage, and a description of the sexual relationship between them. According to Biller’s former partner, there is a considerable similarity between her character in real life and the character of the protagonist as described in the story’s plot (‘Esra’). According to her, the novel contains many intimate details in connection with the relationship she had in the past with the author of the work – Biller, without obtaining appropriate consent. Her mother further stated that the novel contains intimate details that publicly expose her personality which is presented in the novel in a negative light.

106.At the initial stage, the court dealt with the examination of the artistic medium through which the violation of privacy was committed. Ostensibly, the book written by Biller is a fictional novel, any connection between which and reality is completely coincidental. However, according to his former partner, the novel contains precise details and in fact constitutes a ‘memoir’ (i.e. an autobiography) in the guise of a novel. At the second stage, the court examined whether readers belonging to the broad social circle of the average person (such as: the injured party), as distinguished from the circle of celebrities and public figures, could indeed identify her by reading the novel. Examining the extent of the novel’s classification as fiction or biographical will be examined in view of the social circle, i.e. – identification of the character described in the novel by the social circle, is nothing but a presumption that the novel is based on real life – ‘roman à clef’. Case law has developed a dual test intended to help identify the character described in the novel: One, the degree of similarity between the literary character and the real character; two, the degree of the violation of privacy. An intermediate violation of privacy may be remedied by a weak likeness between the literary character and the real character; and vice versa, a weak violation of privacy may be remedied by a stronger similarity between the real character and the literary character. Consequently, German case law developed a two-stage test: (a) is the literary character indeed identified by the close social circle; (b) is the degree of the violation of privacy neutralized through the ‘fictionalization’ of the character described in the plot. We therefore have a quasi- ‘parallelogram of force’ between the extent of the identification and the severity of the violation.

107.After examining the evidentiary matrix, the claim of Biller’s partner that she may be identified by reading the novel, was accepted. Conversely, her mother’s claim was rejected. Once it was ruled that it was indeed possible to identify Biller’s partner, the court examined the violation of the right itself. Due to the fact that the violation is at the core of the right to privacy, and as such cannot be remedied, the publication of the novel was prohibited.

108.From inspection of French case law, a similar approach can be identified (for a specification, see: The Law of Privacy and the Media above, on pages 155-159 and the authorities cited therein) (the article below: Privacy in Europe and the Common Law). The source of the protection of the right to privacy is embedded in Section 9 of the Code Civil [C. CIV.] (in its translation into English):

“Everyone has the right to respect for his private life. Without prejudice to compensation for injury suffered, the court may prescribe any measures, such as sequestration, seizure and others, appropriate to prevent or put an end to an invasion of personal privacy; in case of emergency those measures may be provided for by interim order.”

109.Throughout the years, the French courts have developed two main principles when dealing with a violation of privacy: (a) there is no hierarchy among the competing rights; each competing right has the same normative status; (b) all measures taken in the course of the balancing must be proportional.

110.Against the background of the said principles, it was held that freedom of expression will prevail where there is a public interest with respect to a certain event (‘fait d'actualité’) or when there is a significant contribution to public debate. Examination of the existence of the public interest in the framework of French law is similar to examination of the public interest in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, as specified above. The right to privacy will prevail over freedom of expression only where the violation is in the ‘intimate dimension of private life’ (for further details and references, see: Helen Trouille, Private Life and Public Image: Privacy Legislation in France, 49 (1) I& C. L. Q. 199 (2000), and: Privacy in Europe and the Common Law above, on pages 155-159).

U.S. Law

111.Freedom of expression is established in the First Amendment to the Constitution, an amendment which has received immortal status in U.S. case law, to the point that it is hard to overstate its importance (see, for example, U.S. law on prior restraint: Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)). In contrast, the right to privacy is not established in the Constitution. Indeed, since the above key article of Justices Warren and Brandeis (The Right to Privacy above) the status of the right to privacy has changed. However, it still remains constitutionally inferior to the freedom of expression.

112.U.S. law recognizes four tort causes of action for a violation of privacy (see Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 652 (1977)). From the causes of action, the one relevant to the case at bar is: ‘public disclosure of private facts’. The cause of action is defined thus (ibid, 652D):

“One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that:

(a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and

(b) is not of legitimate concern to the public”.

In order for a cause of action by virtue of ‘public disclosure of private facts’ to rise, the plaintiff is required to prove that: (1) the publication concerns matters pertaining to his private life; (2) the information that was published is highly offensive to a reasonable person; (3) the information that was published is not of legitimate public concern.

113.U.S. case law has focused on the definition of legitimate public concern. Its existence is dependent on proving a logical nexus between the private information that was exposed and the existence of a legitimate public concern (see, for example: Campbell v. Seabury Press, 614 F.2d 395 (5th Cir. 1980)) (hereinafter: “re. Seabury”). This causal link was generously and broadly interpreted in case law (ibid).

114.In a series of judgments concerning the publication of autobiographical works, it was explicitly held that the existence of a ‘legitimate public concern’ prevails over a person’s right to privacy. Thus, for example, in the said re. Seabury, a suit was heard in connection with the exposure of information relating to the conduct of the plaintiff’s marital and domestic life. In the book, which was published by her former husband’s brother and focused on the relationship between the two brothers, details were included pertaining to her marital life. She, on her part, petitioned the court to prevent the publication and distribution of the book. However, her suit was dismissed with prejudice in view of the existence of a ‘logical nexus’ which falls under the constitutional protection:

“A review of the record in this action clearly shows the requisite logical nexus. An account of the author's close association with his older brother certainly is appropriate in the autobiography. Likewise, accounts of his brother’s marriage as they impacted on the author have the requisite logical nexus to fall within the ambit of constitutional protection” (ibid, on page 397).

[The emphases have been added – N.S.].

115.In 2004, another lawsuit was heard concerning a violation of privacy, following the publication of an autobiographical work (Bonome v. Kaysen, 17 Mass. L. Rep. 695 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2004)). ‘Kaysen’, a well-known author, wrote a book entitled ‘The Camera My Mother Gave Me’, which describes her coping with severe pain in her genitals. The book documents the impact of her said medical condition on the intimate relations with her partner, ‘Bonome’. ‘Bonome’ is presented in the book in a negative light, and it is suggested that he attempted at one point to rape Kaysen, after she refused to have sexual relations with him. ‘Bonome’s’ claim against the publication and distribution of the book was dismissed with prejudice because there was a ‘legitimate public interest’ in the publication of ‘Kaysen’s’ autobiographical book. The courtaddressed the difficulty inherent in an autobiographical story containing the experiences of two separate partners. Although the autobiographical story of one is a violation of the other’s privacy, recognition of ‘Kaysen’s’ right to expose the private information establishes the logical nexus required between the information exposed and the public interest, in order to justify the publication thereof.

“As noted above, there is an additional interest in this case: Kaysen’s right to disclose her own intimate affairs. In this case, it is critical that Kaysen was not a disinterested third party telling Bonome’s personal story in order to develop the themes in her book. Rather, she is telling her own personal story – which inextricably involves Bonome in an intimate way. In this regard, several courts have held that where an autobiographical account related to a matter of legitimate public interest reveals private information concerning a third party, the disclosure is protected so long as there is a sufficient nexus between those private details and the issue of public concern. Id.; Anonsen, 857 S.W.2d at 705-06; Campbell v. Seabury Press, 614 F.2d 395, 397 (5th Cir. 1980). Where one’s own personal story involves issues of legitimate public concern, it is often difficult, if not impossible, to separate one’s intimate and personal experiences from the people with whom those experiences are shared. Thus, it is within the context of Bonome and Kaysen’s lives being inextricably bound together by their intimate relationship that the disclosures in this case must be viewed. Because the First Amendment protects Kaysen’s ability to contribute her own personal experiences to the public discourse on important and legitimate issues of public concern, disclosing Bonome’s involvement in those experiences is a necessary incident”.

Interim Summary – Foreign Law

116.The case law in England, Germany, France and of the European Court of Human Rights leans towards granting extensive protection to the right to privacy versus the freedom of expression. Conversely, the U.S. system has adhered to granting a weak status to the right to privacy.

We will now examine our “homegrown” law on the issue of the relationship between the right to privacy and the freedom of expression.

The Normative Balance between the Rights

117.The right to privacy is a relative right. Freedom of expression is also not an absolute right. As such, it is necessary to balance them, one against the other, and against parallel rights and other interests. In the appeal at bar, we are witnessing a “frontal clash” between the right to privacy and the freedom of expression. What is the law when two constitutional rights clash with one another? The freedom of expression and the right to privacy are rights that are shaped as principles, and hence the clash between them is not an abstract clash, without any foundation in legislation. On the contrary, the parties’ claims are based on and supported by the legislation itself. Section 2 of the Protection of Privacy Law prescribes that the “publication of a matter pertaining to the private life of a person, including his sexual history, or his health, or what he does in private” is included in this violation. The law does not deem this determination to be an absolute matter, and instructs in Section 18(3) of the Protection of Privacy Law that the violation is permitted if there is a “public interest therein that justifies it under the circumstances, and provided that if the violation was by way of publication – the publication was not false”. We therefore have before us a question regarding the interpretation of the provision of the said Section 18(3). This balance is, naturally, an interpretational-constitutional balance. “It takes into consideration the in-principle importance of each one of the rights and its weight at the point-of-decision. It reflects the balance conducted within the bounds of proportionality in its narrow sense in the limitation clause” (see Barak, Proportionality in Law above, on pages 124-125).

Proportionality in the Narrow Sense – a Balance of Profit and Loss

118.The test of proportionality in the narrow sense examines the existence of “a proper correlation between the benefit that the policy produces and the damage that it causes” (see HCJ 3648/97 Stamka v. The Minister of the Interior PDI 53(2) 728, 782 (1999)). “It is necessary to examine whether a proper ratio exists between the public benefit derived from the act of legislation whose legality is considered and the damage to the constitutional right caused by such act of legislation” (see HCJ 2605/05 College of Law & Business v. The Minister of Finance, Paragraph 50 of the judgment of Chief Justice D. Beinisch (November 19, 2009)).

119.At the center of the proportionality test – in its narrow sense – is the following question: does the weight of the benefit derived from the realization of one right exceed the weight of the damage that will be caused to the other constitutional right. This weight is neither measurable nor quantifiable, but rather metaphorical weight derived, inter alia, “from political and economic ideologies, from the unique history of each and every country, from the structure of the political and governmental system” (see Proportionality in Law above, on page 431) from the specific legal tradition and various social values.

120.We are not concerned with comparing the weight of the two constitutional rights themselves, i.e. the weight of the right to privacy on the one hand and the weight of the freedom of expression on the other. The question put to our decision is different and limited in scope: is the weight of the marginal benefit derived as a result of realization of one right greater than the marginal damage that will be caused to the other right. As stated at this court in another case: “The question is whether the blanket prohibition is proportionate (in the narrow sense)? Is the correlation between the benefit derived from achieving the proper purpose of the law (to reduce as much as possible the risk from the foreign spouses in Israel) and the damage to the human rights caused by it (a violation of the human dignity of the Israeli spouse) a proportionate one? The criterion we must adopt is a value one. We must balance between conflicting values and interests, against a background of the values of the Israeli legal system. We should note that the question before us is not the security of Israeli residents or protecting the dignity of the Israeli spouses. The question is not life or quality of life. The question before us is much more limited. It is this: is the additional security obtained by the policy change from the most stringent individual check of the foreign spouse that is possible under the law to a blanket prohibition of the spouse’s entry into Israel proportionate to the additional violation of the human dignity of the Israeli spouses caused as a result of this policy change? (HCJ 7052/03 Adalah The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel v. The Minister of the Interior, PDI 61(2) 202, Paragraph 91 of the judgment of Chief Justice A. Barak (2006)).

121.The question at the center of the appeal at bar is not which is preferable, freedom of expression or the right to privacy; but whether the weight of the benefit that will grow from the prevention of publication of the book at bar – which violates the right to privacy – is greater than the weight of the damage that will be caused to the freedom of expression as a result of the prevention.

122.In determining the weight of the rights placed on the scales, three criteria must be addressed: the importance of the right; the probability of the violation or realization of the right; the magnitude of the violation or the realization. With respect to the importance of the right, it has already been ruled that despite the identical constitutional status of the members of the family of rights, the social objectives established and protected by such rights are not identical. “Not all constitutional rights are equal in importance, and consequently nor is their specific weight. The importance of a constitutional right and the importance of preventing its violation are determined according to the basic perceptions of society. They are impacted by the cultural history and the character of each and every society” (see Barak Proportionality in Law above, on page 443). There is another distinction between the core of the right and its margins. Protection of the core of the right is not the same as protection of its margins. Relevant in this regard is the opinion of Justice (former title) A. Barak in HCJ 5016/96 Horev v. The Minister of Transportation, PDI 51(4) 1, 49 (1997): “Within the confines of a given right, various levels of protection may be allotted. Thus, for instance, the protection offered to political expression is superior to that allotted commercial expression. In the context of a certain aspect of a right (such as political speech), a violation at the core of the right is not the same as a violation in its margins”.

123.The “geographic location” of the specific case is determined in view of examination of the rationales underlying the manifestation of the right with which we are concerned. “Although all expressions are included in our system in the one ‘category’ of freedom of expression, not all types of expressions enjoy equal protection. The basic criterion for determining the extent of the protection for a certain expression is the social importance of the expression, and particularly its importance in realizing the objectives underlying the freedom of expression” (F.Cr.H 7383/08 Ungerfeld v. The State of Israel, Paragraph 28 of the judgment of Justice (former title) E. Rivlin (July 11, 2011); for example: protection of the freedom of commercial expression is not the same as protection of the freedom of artistic expression; their importance is different (the above re. Kidum; see and compare: HCJ 5432/03 Shin - The Israeli Movement for Equal Representation of Women v. The Council for Cable TV and Satellite Broadcasting, PDI 58(3) 65, 82 (2004); HCJ 4644/00 Jafora-Tabori Ltd. v. The Second Authority for Television & Radio, PDI 54(4) 178, 182 (2000)). Similarly, the protection of freedom of expression in relations between individuals is not the same as protection of freedom of expression in relations between an individual and the government: “The scope of the individual’s right to freedom of expression against the state is more extensive than the individual’s right to freedom of expression against another individual” (Barak Human Dignity, above on page 723).

124.Note, it is necessary to be careful of being ‘swept away’ in the ideological level. The value must not serve as a veil against an interest. Sometimes, the ideological robe, the shell, the external covering, is void of any moral content and is actually an interest-oriented (financial, personal or other) dispute. In situations such as these, there is nothing in the manifestation of the right with which we are concerned other than what it comprises. In this case, values which do not underlie the limited manifestation should not be read into it in an artificial and forced manner. These are the situations in which the right of one individual to personal wellbeing clashes with the right of another individual to personal wellbeing. In such a case, we should not wear ideological dress nor be blinded by an ideological argument. The value is, as a matter of fact, an interest, and the Talmudic question then arises “why do you think your blood is redder than anyone else’s” (Bavli, Pesachim 25, B). In these situations, there is no need to examine the “clash of civilizations” between the basic rights. The specific issue of division of the “personal wellbeing” between the litigants may be decided without requiring the in-principle decision.

125.The probability of the violation in the realization of the right, and the magnitude of the injury, also affects the relative weight of the rights on the constitutional scales. A highly probable violation is not the same as an improbable violation; the violation of a single right is not the same as a violation of many rights; a severe injury is not the same as a minor injury; the violation of a right in relations between individuals is not the same as a violation of a right in relations between an individual and the government.

Freedom of Speech and the Right to Privacy
 

1.  
2.  
3.  
4.  
5.  
6.  
7.  
8.  
9.  
10.  
11.  
12.  
13.  
14.  
15.  
16.  
17.  
18.  
19.  
20.  
21.  
22.  
23.  
24.  
25.  
26.  
27.  
28.  
29.  
30.  
31.  
32.  
33.  
34.  
35.  
36.  
37.  
38.  
39.  
40.  
41.  
42.  
43.  
44.  
45.  
46.  
47.  
48.  
49.  
50.  
51.  
52.  
53.  
54.  
55.  
56.  
57.  
58.  
59.  
60.  
61.  
62.  
63.  
64.  
65.  
66.  
67.  
68.  
69.  
70.  
71.  
72.  
73.  
74.  
75.  
76.  
77.  
78.  
79.  
80.  
81.  
82.  
83.  
84.  
85.  
86.  
87.  
88.  
89.  
90.  
91.  
92.  
93.  
94.  
95.  
96.  
97.  
98.  
99.  
100.  
101.  
102.  
103.  
104.  
105.  
106.  
107.  
108.  
109.  
110.  
111.  
112.  
113.  
114.  
115.  
116.  
117.  
118.  
119.  
120.  
121.  
122.  
123.  
124.  
125.  
126. In the proper balance between the right to privacy and freedom of speech, it is first necessary to examine the degree of compatibility of the right at hand with the rationales it is based upon. Accordingly, first to be examined is the extent of the expression's contribution to public debate against the severity of the infringement on the right to privacy. An expression that greatly contributes to public debate will be given priority on the constitutional scale when weighed against a medium-level invasion of privacy; infringement on the core of privacy will be afforded protection from a medium-level infringement on freedom of speech. Indeed, an issue that is important in and of itself is the existence of a parallel infringement, similar in degree, such as a collision between an expression that greatly contributes to public debate and severely impinges on the core of privacy. I need not resolve this issue in this appeal. Such a decision will require a meticulous examination of the details of the case in question. The appropriate balance, to my mind, is this: preferring an infringement on the fringes of the right to privacy to the alternative of an infringement on the core of freedom of speech, and preferring an infringement on the fringes of freedom of speech to the alternative of an infringement on the core of the right to privacy.

127. An aid as to the degree of infringement on the right to privacy is to be found in the examination of numerous characteristics, including: (1) the "geographic" location of the infringement on the right, at its core or on its margins; (2) the nature of the relationship and the duties of trust between the parties; (3) the publicness or privacy of the figure; (4) the manner of publication; (5) the way in which the information came to the knowledge of the promulgator; (6) the conduct of the person with respect to invasions of his privacy prior to the publication; (7) the infringement, whether one-time or continuous. These criteria and others like them assist the presiding judge in deciding the severity of the injury.

128. In deciding the matter at hand, we have adopted an arrangement similar to the one practiced in the European legal systems. These legal systems are better suited to our legislative and constitutional structure. Let us keep in mind and give heed: turning to comparative law harbors both peril and blessing. The blessing lies in learning from the experience of others, as articulated by Justice Holmes "The life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience" (Anonymous [Holmes], Book Notices, 14, Am. L. Rev. 233, 234 (1880)). Comparative law allows us to enrich our world, learn and acquire knowledge.  However, alongside the blessing, there is also danger - "The root of faith is the root of rebellion" – learning in the "copy-paste" method is not appropriate. Each and every system has its unique characteristics: the values underpinning the system, a legislative and constitutional structure, national history, political ideologies and more. These unique elements affect the rulings of the court: "It is a burden that we bear to be careful not to be captivated by foreign legal systems, and primarily – to know to distinguish and choose between principles and doctrines and manners of thought and solution techniques – in which inspiration and wisdom can be found – to specific solutions and details that we will leave unnoticed. Indeed, comparative law expands the mind, it enriches with knowledge and wisdom, rescues us from provincialism, yet, at the same time, let us not forget that it is ours and our situs that we are dealing with, and let us beware of an imitation of assimilation and self-deprecation" (L.Cr.A. 8472/01 Maharshak vs. the State of Israel, PD 59(1)442, 474 (2004)); and in other words: "This comparative law – whether on the international level or the state level – holds great importance … however, every country has its own problems. Even if the in-principle considerations are similar, the balance between them reflects the uniqueness of every society and the characteristics of its legal arrangements … indeed, that is the power and these are the limits of comparative law. Its power lies in the expansion of the interpretational field of vision and horizon. Its power lies in the guidance of the interpreter as to the normative potential held by the legal system … its limits are in the uniqueness of every legal system, its institutions, the ideology that characterizes it and the manner in which it treats individuals and society. Indeed, comparative law is like an experienced friend. It is advisable to listen to his good advice, but it should not replace self-decision" (see H.C.J. 4128/02 Adam Teva V'Din – Israel Union for Environmental Defense vs. the Prime Minister of Israel, PD 58(3)503, 515-516 (2004)).

129. As aforesaid, the American legal system places supreme importance on freedom of speech. Only rarely will freedom of speech retreat therein before the right to privacy. This legal perception is not in line with the common standard in common law and continental law jurisdictions. It is based on the First Amendment to the Constitution, whose status and importance in American case law and culture is a well-known fact that requires no proof. American legal policy reflects, de facto, a nearly generic preference of freedom of speech over the right to privacy.

130. Should we learn from the European legal systems or follow in the footsteps of their American counterpart? As for myself, the answer is clear, and results from the remoteness of the American system from the Israeli constitutional tradition, from the legal framework and from our Hebrew legacy (see and compare: Eli Salzberger and Fania Oz-Salzberger, "The Tradition of Freedom of Speech in Israel", Quiet, Someone is Talking! The Legal Culture of Free Speech in Israel, 27 (Editor: Michael Birnhack, 2006)).

131. On the constitutional level – the status of the right to privacy as a basic right is established in Section 7 of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. Freedom of speech is absent from this law. Without delving into the thick of the question – of whether freedom of speech is included in the constitutional rights contained in the Basic Law – it is undisputed that "Freedom of speech is not within the rights explicitly enumerated in the Basic Law". Even those who include freedom of speech in the Basic Law believe that it is derived from the principle of human dignity and self-fulfillment (see: Interpretation in Law (Constitutional Interpretation) above, on pages 427-428). For details and references on this matter see also: Hillel Sommer "The Non-Enumerated Rights – of the Scope of the Constitutional Revolution" Mishpatim 28 257, 318-322 (5757)). The adoption of an outlook that grants freedom of speech "supreme status" over the right to privacy has no footing either in the constitutional text itself or in its reasoning. As may be recalled, when the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation were legislated, the Basic Law: Freedom of Speech and Organization Bill was also submitted, but failed to pass into a law in the Knesset (see Bills 5754 101).

132. On the theoretical level, it is possible to base a chronological approach of "[T]urn from evil and do good": preventing an invasion of privacy first and realizing artistic freedom later. This, in order to prevent creative work whose glory would come from trampling over others: "Man is like the tree of the field and speech is his fruit…and just as a bad fruit does not emerge from a good root and a good fruit does not emerge from a bad root, so is man's speech when he quarrels with his fellow man and insults him, this indicates that the root from which the insult comes is bad, and therefore the insult is within him, because the bad thing coming out of him is present in him, and where the trunk of the tree is flawed so is what will come out of it" (the MaHaRal, Netivot Olam [Paths of the World] B, Netiv HaShtika [Path of Silence], Chapter A). This issue deserves thought and contemplation, as to both theory and practice. As for me, I agree with the words of Justice I. Amit in Re. Captain R. (above, in paragraph 5 of the judgment): "Since the legislature has chosen, in the Basic Law:  Human Dignity and Liberty, to elevate the right to dignity and understate freedom of expression, I believe weight should be ascribed to that, in the sense that it may not be predetermined that in a collision between the two, the weight of the right of expression will prevail. I will note that in many judgments we find reliance on the judgment in Re. Avneri as part of the reasoning for a preconceived preference of freedom of speech, but one should bear in mind that this judgment was rendered prior to the enactment of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. In my mind, when the matter at hand pertains to a collision between freedom of speech and the right to a good name in a private lawsuit under the Defamation Prohibition Law – to be distinguished from a collision between freedom of speech and other values, such as the protection of public feelings – the balance should be carried out ad hoc, and one should beware of a formula that includes a "coefficient" or "power multiplier" that favors freedom of speech". These words also coincide with the aforementioned statements by Prof. Barak, whereby "The scope of the individual's right to freedom of speech against the State is more comprehensive than the individual's right to freedom of speech against another individual" (Barak, Human Dignity, above on page 723). Hence, in the balance between the freedom of speech of one individual and the privacy of another individual, freedom of speech is not to be given automatic precedence nor granted "super-status".

133. On the legislative level – the Protection of Privacy Law prescribes in Section 18(3) that "In any criminal or civil proceeding for infringement of privacy one of the following may constitute a good defense … there is public interest in the infringement which justified it under the circumstances of the case". The language of the law does not provide a sweeping protection to any infringement that has a public interest. This language expressly deviates from its American counterpart, which offers protection to any expression of public interest and spares any further examination of the magnitude of the infringement. This is not our way. We hold America in esteem, but we do not acquire all of the goods it offers. It is not for naught that the Israeli legislature rejected the proposal to omit the words "which justified it under the circumstances of the case" (see: Eli Halm Protection of Privacy Law 235 (2003)) (hereinafter: "Protection of Privacy Law"). Case law states: (C.A. Registrar of Databases vs. Ventura, PD 48(3)808 827 (1994)): "The question that needs to be examined in order to establish the protection of Section 18(3) of the law is not whether the public has an interest in the information, but rather whether there is a cause that justifies the invasion of a person's privacy in order to satisfy such public interest". This position has also been expressed in literature: "It is not sufficient that the invasion pertained to a public interest, but rather it has to be clear that there was a public interest in the invasion itself. That is to say, the fact that the subject-matter of the publication in general is of public interest will not lead to the application of the protection. The person advocating it will need to persuade that the public interest required him to invade another's privacy. The question of existence of a public interest cannot be examined by the court merely according to a general formula, and it will need to give heed to the circumstances of the matter adjudicated before it, in order to decide whether the invasion of privacy is justified under such circumstances" (Ze’ev Segal "The Right to Privacy versus the Right to Know", Iyunei Mishpat 9 175 193 (1983)). For additional information see also: Ruth Gavison "Prohibition on a Privacy Invading Publications – the Right to Privacy and the Public’s Right to Know" Civil Rights in Israel – a Collection of Essays in Honor of Haim H. Cohn 177, 204-214 (Editor: Ruth Gavison, 1982)).

134. Our Jewish Heritage – the right to privacy seeps through the slits of the comprehensive writings of Jewish law. Prohibitions on defamation, gossip, Herem De-Rabbeinu Gershom [Ban of our teacher Gershom], Heizek Re'iyah [damage by seeing], are only a few of the many appearances of the right to privacy in Hebrew law (see, for example: Nahum Rakover Protection of Privacy (2006); Itamar Warhaftig A Person's Privacy– the Right to Privacy in the Halacha (2009)). We cannot specify and enumerate its various appearances here, and we will therefore make do with a brief review of an issue that is close to the matter at hand – the "Bal Ye'amer" [not to be told] prohibition. This prohibition is defined in the Talmud (Bavli, Yoma D, B) as follows: "Whence do we know that if a man had said something to his neighbor the latter must not spread the news until he tells him ‘go and say it’? From the scriptural text: The Lord spoke to him out of the tent of meeting, le’emor [saying] ". This prohibition was interpreted in the answers of Rabbi Haim Palachi (Q&A Hakakei Lev, Part A, Yoreh De'ah, Title 49 (hereinafter: "Hakakei Lev Q&A"): "And it further appears to my humble mind to say that even if a person sends a letter to his friend, the friend who received the letter is forbidden to disclose the contents of the letter to others. Even if it concerns nothing unusual, contains no secret nor something indecent nor damage to the writer of the letter, there is a prohibition to disclose, as stated in the Gemara, [when] anything told to a friend is not to be told, until he says so. All the more so where disgrace or a secret are concerned, and damage arises when it is disclosed". Indeed, under Jewish law, a person is prohibited from revealing the secrets of his fellow man, not only on grounds of gossip, but also in order to prevent harm. As articulated by Rabbi Yonah Girondi: "And a person must conceal the secret his friend will confidentially reveal to him, even though revealing that secret is not a matter of gossip, because revealing the secret will cause harm to its owner and a reason to breach his intentions… because the person revealing the secret has only just left the path of modesty, and here he is violating the will of the owner of the secret" (She'arei Tshuvah Part C, Title 225). Therefore, revealing a secret is not only a betrayal of trust, but also a blatant invasion of the private space of the owner of the secret and a "breach of his intentions", i.e., - impingement on his liberty. Another opinion was expressed by Rabbi Haim Palachi, whereby the person who discloses the secret of another person, steals the other person's proprietary right to the secret he told him: "Veritably stealing his mind, which is at the hidden depths of his heart" (Q&A Hakakei Lev above, ibid).

135. The formal course for our reference to Jewish law, Section 1 of the Foundations of Law Act, 5740-1980, prescribes as follows: "Where the court, faced with a legal issue requiring determination, finds no answer thereto in the statues or case law or by analogy, it will determine in the light of the principles of freedom, justice, equity and peace of Israel's heritage”. Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty outlined, in Section 2, its purpose to establish "The values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state". It appears unnecessary to discuss the level to which Jewish law is obligatory in the Israeli legal system. It is our privilege that the tradition of Israeli law does not begin in 5708, upon the establishment of the State of Israel, but is rather rooted in a tradition of thousands of years. A proper Israeli legal policy is one that lends an ear and listens to the sentiment of Jewish law and holds the protection of a person's privacy in high regard. As articulated by Chief Justice A. Barak: "Reference to the fundamental values of Jewish law is not reference to comparative law. It is a reference to the justice of Israel. It is a mandatory reference" (Aharon Barak A Judge in a Democratic Society 290 (2004)).

136. The proper position in a collision between the rights in question – I believe it is the one warranted by reality – is the examination of every case on its merits, without an in-principle ruling as to the precedence of one right over the other. A severe infringement of freedom of speech would outweigh a light and a medium infringement of the right to privacy; a severe infringement of the core of privacy would outweigh a light and a medium infringement of freedom of speech. This rule must be put into practice whenever the rights collide with one another. It is not for us to complete the task, but neither are we free to avoid it.

From the General to the Particular – the Right to Privacy and Freedom of Speech

137. We must take several steps in order to analyze the novel at the center of the appeal before us, determine the severity of the infringement on rights, the damage of the collision between them and the balance required under the circumstances of the matter: firstly, we will discuss the degree of fictionalization of the protagonist and the similarity to reality; secondly, we will examine whether the invasion of the Respondent's privacy is at the core of the right to privacy or at its margins, and discuss the degree of the injury; thirdly, we will examine the severity of the possible violation of freedom of speech.

Degree of Fictionalization

138. Two opinions by senior scholars in the field of global and Hebrew literature – Prof. Ariel Hirschfeld and Prof. Hannan Hever – have been placed before the District Court. In the opinions, the scholars impressively explained why the novel in question belongs to the category of fiction literature and is not classified under the autobiographic-historic category. Whilst "The historian claims that what he writes really happened", the novelist claims "that what he wrote did not happen but rather could have happened". In short, "The historian has a truth claim. The novelist has no truth claim" (see Hirschfeld, in Sections 7 and 8). Hirschfeld continues to examine in detail the creative work of the Appellant and proves, based on its internal and external attributes, the elements of pattern and style thereof, that this text belongs to the literary-fictional type. His fellow scholar, Prof. Hannan Hever, reaches a similar conclusion. According to his position "The distinction between an autobiographic novel and a fictional novel does not depend upon the closeness or remoteness of its plot from the reality of the novelist's life. It is an objective test that is derived from the interpretation of the reasonable reader to the gamut of indications in the novel". After "considering the cumulative weight of the indications found in the novel" Hever reached the conclusion that these indicate "unequivocally that the book deals with the construction of fiction rather than actual reality and that no 'autobiographical contract' was reached between the writer and his readers". Prof. Hever even went as far as to say that "this conclusion refutes any claim based on this argument" (see Hever, in Section 3). A similar conclusion was expressed in the affidavit of the writer Mira Magen, who accompanied the Appellant in the "labor pains" of the book.

139. The coming together of different worlds of content harbors both a blessing and a peril. The blessing – in mutual enrichment, in learning from the different and the similar; and the peril – the blurring of the lines that separate the disciplines. Different purposes lie at the basis of law and literature. The roles of law – the resolution of disputes, the imposition of order and the administration of justice – are not in keeping with the objectives of literature, which are the creation of art in and of itself and the creation of meaning for man, as Prof. Hirschfeld says. At times, law and literature go hand in hand, and then law girds up its loins and fights in the defense of literature, but at times – it fulminates against it. The definition of a creative work as fictional, in one area – literature – does not compel a similar definition in another area – law. "Every State in its own script and every people in its own language". The basic assumptions that underlie the different disciplines sometimes lead to opposite definitions and conclusions. That is also the case in the matter at hand.

140. Literary fiction expresses an "unwritten contract" between the reasonable reader and the writer. One of the terms of the contract is the lack of connection between the creative work and reality. This is not the case where legal fiction is concerned. The law, contrary to the literary-professional position expressed by the expert professors in the opinions, does not render its judgment in a binary world in which the work is categorized into one compartment and not the other. The law examines the degree to which the work is fictional. At times, the work slightly resembles events that occurred in real life; at times the work is based on such events, but without a full compatibility; and at times, such events are reflected in the actual work word for word. The examination of the degree of fiction is not a theoretical matter. It will be carried out according to the extent of the reader's acquaintance with the events that appear in the work. At times, only the soul mate of the real-life character would be able to recognize the events described through the lines. However, at times, close acquaintances of the character would also be able to recognize it. And sometimes its distant acquaintances, and sometimes the nameless amorphous reasonable reader would be able to identify it. Adopting a legal policy that is based on the literary worldview of the scholars Hirschfeld and Hever is inappropriate. Such a policy would allow those who so seek to publicize things that amount to invasion of privacy and defamation under a literary-fictional guise. The reasonable reader would view the literary manifestation and would be able to ignore the real-world one. However, the acquaintances and cherishers of the real figure would easily recognize it, process the information in their consciousness, and arrive at real-life conclusions; not fictional ones. This would open the door to the nullification of the laws of privacy protection and defamation prohibition.

141. Examining the degree of fiction of the creative work before us indicates that the character of the female protagonist includes numerous and unique identifying details, which enable the recognition of the Respondent. Among these, we can enumerate the description of her physical appearance, details of her age, unique occupation, her place of studies, her workplace and her place of residence, details of her special creative work, identifying details of the Appellant, her partner, and events that occurred in reality in the presence of third parties. In its judgment, the District Court correctly articulated these details (ibid, paragraph 40):

"a.        The female-protagonist is described in the book when meeting the male-protagonist [as being[ at the age of the Plaintiff at that time, and as someone who studies in the same institution and in the same department as the Plaintiff had, and works at the same place and in the same position as the Plaintiff had. The Plaintiff resided with her partner at the time relevant to the claim in the area described in the book, her partner’s also lived in the immediate area of the location described in the book. The female-protagonist has the same number of siblings as the Plaintiff and her parents are of the same ethnic origins as the Plaintiff's parents.

b.         The physical appearance of the female-protagonist as described in the book bears a great resemblance to the physical appearance of the Plaintiff, including her hair, the color of her eyes and the presence of tattoos in locations similar to the ones specified in the book. The book describes many additional details with respect to the female-protagonist's appearance, her hobbies and her past; however, these are less pronounced for the identification of the Plaintiff with the female-protagonist.

c.         The book describes, as aforesaid, the Plaintiff's graduation project. The book includes a conceptual description of the project and describes all of the stages of preparation of the project as well as its visual appearance. It is a unique project that had been publicly presented as the Plaintiff's graduation project in the presence of her teachers and schoolmates and consequently also identifies the Plaintiff. The vast volume apportioned in the book to the work and the stages of preparation thereof also points the finger, in and of itself, at the Plaintiff.

d.         The descriptions of the male-protagonist in the book in a manner which identifies him as the Defendant also contribute to the identification of the Plaintiff, as the Defendant's partner at that time, as the female-protagonist. A fact to be added thereto is that the book was written by the Plaintiff [sic; should be "Defendant"] under his own name, in the first person, and this too contributes to the identification of the Plaintiff by her immediate environment, which knew her to be the Defendant's partner.

e.         The book includes events that undisputedly occurred in reality, in the presence of third parties, and which enable the identification of the Plaintiff as the literary character in the eyes of the persons who were present in the events or had heard about them from the parties".

142. These details – factual findings determined by the District Court, and there is no cause to intervene therein or change them – tip the scale and mandate the conclusion that the Respondent can be recognized as the female-protagonist of the Appellant's book. On the whole, according to the nature of the details and their accumulation, there is basis for recognition by the reasonable distant acquaintance, a colleague, a classmate and a potential student. To this we must add that it is the course for juicy details such as these to reach broader circles. A description of physical appearance in a novel is not generally etched in the mind of the reader, and it is temporary and passing. On the other hand, a description of the character's sexual habits and details of her doings in the bedroom fulfill voyeuristic urges and serve as juicy raw material, tradable currency.

143. A side note on the opinions of the experts, Prof. Hirschfeld and Prof. Hever: A light and superficial perusal of the theoretical literature that addresses fiction gives rise to distinctions which were not mentioned in the opinions at all, and mainly, the existence of midpoint intermediate definitions between fiction and documentary, such as the Roman à clef genre. For some reason, the experts chose not to present the court with the theoretical definitions and sub-definitions for the term "fiction", which are extensively discussed in research literature. That is a problem with that. As a result, Prof. Hever decisively determined in his opinion that his own conclusion "refutes any claim based on this argument". There is no room for a conclusion such as this in an expert opinion. The expert is required to opine in the field of his expertise, not to overstep the jurisdiction of the court.

The Degree of Invasion of Privacy

144. As aforesaid, with respect to the invasion of privacy, we make a distinction between an impingement on the core of privacy and an impingement on the margins thereof. The core of the right – intimate details of a person's life – "the inner circle of life". The margins of the right – details that belong to the external space of a person's life – "the external circle of life". In this appeal, we are not required to discuss the "twilight zone" that lies between the margins of the right and its core. We are concerned here with a clear infringement on the core of the right. The book includes "a detailed description of matters pertaining to the private life of the Plaintiff… a detailed description of the Plaintiff's relationship with the Defendant, including events, conversations and descriptions that are unmistakably intimate. The book includes a description of the Plaintiff's relationship with her former partner until their breakup, with the parents of her partner and with her own parents, including statements made by the Plaintiff with respect to her parents in personal conversations she had with the Defendant. The Plaintiff rightly claims that the book comprehensively, and without any camouflage, describes her most intimate relationships, exposes her thoughts, feelings, desires, secrets and sexual life. All in such a manner that the Plaintiff's life, down to the most intimate details, is spread out as an open book before the readers" (paragraph 49 of the judgment of the District Court). Descriptions of this type constitute a severe impingement on the very core of the right to privacy.

Protection of the Trust Relations between Couples

145. "Acquire a friend for yourself". This sound advice, which is based on nature and human need, is given to us by Rabbi Joshua Ben Perachia (Mishna, Avot, 1, 6). "And how will one acquire a friend? This teaches that a person should acquire a friend with whom to eat… and read … and reveal all of his secrets, the secrets of the Torah and the secrets of worldly things". (Avot de Rabbi Natan 8, 3). A person needs a friend; man and woman need one another. "Either friendship or death" (Bavli, Bava Batra 16, 2). The relationship between a man and his friend and between a man and his wife serves as a haven for a person, a protected and safe place. The outside world, it is strange and alienated. A man's home is his castle. In the public domain, a person is constantly under a scrutinizing and inspecting eye. In private, in the privacy of his own home, together with a friend or a spouse, a person has a piece of land, physical relaxation and peace of mind. This relationship is characterized by a high level of trust between the parties. At its peak, the friends and the spouses accept each other, as they are, unreservedly. Relationships such as these encourage a person to open his heart and share his secrets with another. Unlike the scale armor that a person wears when going out into the outside alienated world, relationships like these are characterized by removal of the outer layer and exposure of the inner world. In the course thereof, the spouse is stripped bare, physically and spiritually, before the other spouse. A worthy legal regime grants protection to such a relationship. Secrets and details revealed in the framework of interpersonal relationships, in which there is a high expectation for trust relations, are worthy of legal protection. Words such as these were stated by the English Court:

"There could be hardly be [sic] anything more intimate or confidential than is involved in that relationship, or than in the mutual trust and confidences which are shared between husband and wife. The confidential nature of the relationship is of its very essence and so obviously and necessarily implicit in it that there is no need for it to be expressed". (Argyll v. Argyll [1967] Ch. 302, 322).

For additional information see also: Nigel Lowe & Gillian Douglas, Bromley's Family Law 113-118 (2007).

146. The Appellant and the Respondent had a longtime romantic relationship that lasted approximately five years. In the course of their acquaintance, the Respondent separated from her partner, and the Appellant divorced his wife. Clearly such a stable and lengthy relationship gives rise to an enhanced duty of loyalty. In exposing intimate details, which one of the parties learned about during the couple’s relationship, there is severe harm to the rationale at the base of the protection of privacy and to the inclination to safeguard and protect the existence of interpersonal relationships. Naturally, the context in which the details were disclosed, and the ones for which the question of exposure is on the table, also adds to the depth and to the weight of the invasion of privacy in the case at bar.

147. Interim Conclusion: After examining the degree of fiction in the creative work and the degree of infringement on the right to privacy, we have learned that there is little fiction and great harm. This is a creative work, a novel, in which the reasonable distant acquaintance may recognize the Respondent. It is a grave infringement on the core of the right to privacy, the trust relationship between a couple. The inevitable result is that publishing the novel will cause a severe and intense invasion of the Respondent's privacy; the identification and the injury join together to create heavy weight on the side of privacy on the constitutional scale.

Freedom of Speech

148. The extent of the violation of freedom of speech will be examined according to its underlying rationales. We will distinguish between rationales that reflect extensive social values such as: human dignity, the exposure of truth, and the importance of freedom of speech in a democratic regime. Realizing these values through the examined expression elevates the protection of the expression to a high level and the freedom to express it. On the other hand, insofar as the expression primarily stands on the basis of personal wellbeing, the value will be reduced to interest level, simultaneously reducing the degree of protection of the freedom to express it. This is not a binary choice. Many expressions contain several elements that stem from different rationales. The court is entrusted with the task of deciding the dose of the rationales fulfilled by the expression.

149. The novel authored by the Appellant embodies artistic freedom. This specific manifestation does not merit as severe a protection as its fellow political expression (see and compare: Barak, Human Dignity, above on page 731), but nor does it descend to the bottom tier, like its commercial counterpart. As such, it fulfills different values that underpin freedom of speech – the exposure of truth, and the importance of freedom of speech in a democratic regime – but it does not involve a full realization of these rationales, which are wholly realized in political expressions. Artistic freedom is also known for its self-serving personal aspect. The creator wishes to glorify his name and make himself renowned. The weighting of these rationales indicates that the expression before us realizes freedom of speech to a medium degree. Ideal and interest are intermingled therein. The violation of freedom of speech in the case at bar is also not of the severe type, as it does not originate in censorship on the part of the governing authorities, but rather in the Respondent's legal action as a person concerned with protecting her right to privacy. The balance between a serious and severe infringement of the right to privacy against a medium violation of freedom of speech tends toward the protection of privacy.

Concern of Literary Work being Shelved

150. According to the Appellant, denial of the appeal "might lead to absurd results" and to the shelving of important literary work based on "actual" events. Counsel for the Appellant quotes the CEO of the publisher, who protested against such legal policy in his testimony at the District Court: "In fact, what will be asked of me, is not to prove that things happened, but rather to prove that things never happened … I will have to prove that the fictional protagonist did not have such a neighbor … how can you prove what did not happen … any work whatsoever is impossible if we come to that place, which I find preposterous … it is the absolute paralyzing of original creative work" (page 110 of the court transcript). The Appellant also notes a considerable list of important literary works that would have been shelved and never published, according to the legal policy set by the District Court.

151. The Appellant claims that "The judgment may have… destructive implications on an entire branch of literary writing. Its practical implication is that writers writing an autobiography or an autobiographic novel are prohibited from relating a relationship with another person and sharing with the public, through the work, experiences that they themselves had had in that relationship". In conclusion, the Appellant calls upon the court to stop and ask itself "Would I be willing to apply the exact same criteria to one of the masterpieces of Hebrew literature? Were I to ignore the identity of the Appellant and visualize Amos Oz, or David Grossman, or Meir Shalev before me – would I then too arrive at the same outcome?"

152. I have done as the Appellant directed. I turned to ask myself, would I indeed be willing to adopt similar criteria in other situations? But I will first say a few words. The utilitarian argument regarding the increase of the aggregate wellbeing of society as a result of the publication of literary works has great charm. It is supposedly simple: in situations where the right of one private individual collides with the right of another person, which has a high aggregate benefit, the second right should be preferred.

153. However, this argument bears a twofold flaw: firstly, the protection of human dignity also rises from utilitarianism itself, since a society that throws human dignity down the gutter significantly reduces the aggregate wellbeing. This principle was not overlooked by the father of the utilitarian doctrine, John Stuart Mill, who, in his book "On Liberty", determined that aggregate benefit and utility also rise from a regime that protects human rights. This utility should be taken into account when examining the aggregate wellbeing regime in situations of human rights' violation. A similar position is brought in Midrashei Chazal [the writings of our sages may their memory be blessed] that addressed the construction of the biblical Tower of Babel: "Rabbi Pinchas says that there were no stones there to build the city and the tower, so what did they do? They fashioned bricks and burned them as artisans of earthenware until they built it seven miles high … and if a man fell down and died they paid him no heed and if a brick fell down they sat and wept and said when would there be another to replace it" (Pirkei de Rabbi Eliezer(Higger), Chapter 24). The preference of brick over man – this is what stands at the heart of Chazal's criticism of the Babylonian tower.

154. Secondly, there are situations wherein we decide that the protection of human dignity is more important than the accomplishment of other social values. This is the case, for example, in legal policy on experiments in humans. The benefit held in this type of experiment and the aggregate wellbeing expected therefrom could have a crucial effect on the future of the whole of mankind. Despite this, the law has chosen to apply a restraining legal policy that takes a firm hand against these, in order not to violate human dignity. A similar principle is reflected in the words of Chazal who determined that "So great is human dignity that it overrides the negative commandments of the Torah" (Bavli, Berachot 19, 2).

155. Clearly, one must not underestimate the importance of the artistic freedom in general, and the autobiographical one in particular. It should be granted an honorary place in the Israeli realm of rights. As a rule, the court will not prevent the publication of an autobiographic novel. Prior restraint is a highly rare act. However, it is possible that as a result of the legal policy outlined in the judgment of the District Court and now adopted in our ruling in this court, mankind as a whole will suffer the loss of several literary works. This argument, as aforesaid, does not deny our ruling. There are values that merit even the loss of several "good books". Man before book. Books are meant to serve mankind, not the other way around, in the sense of "a maidservant who inherits her mistress" (Mishlei, Book of Proverbs 30, 3). It appears that the Appellant's words of "cultural ruin" and of his own work which "went up in flames" were overstated, to the point that he has forgotten which is the cause and which is the effect.

Copyright and Defamation

156. The District Court found, as mentioned, that there was no need to rule on the Respondent's arguments with respect to Appellant's infringement on her copyright to her letters – which he had used in his book – because there was anyway no justification to award additional monetary compensation beyond the compensation for invasion of privacy. The Appellant did not address this cause of action in his summations. There is therefore no need to address this issue in the framework of the appeal at bar. Likewise with respect to the Appellant's claim that the publication of his book does not constitute publication of defamation against the Respondent. According to him, the District Court erred in finding that "The Plaintiff (the literary character) is described in the book as a woman who had an intimate relationship with a married man and did so in parallel to her relationship with her then partner. She is further described as someone who is willing to trample over anything that stands in her way to her goals, and as someone who uses people 'as if they were objects'" (paragraph 68 of the judgment). The Respondent, on her part, claims that this ruling of the District Court should also remain unchanged. In my opinion, this matter too does not require a ruling in the framework of the appeal at bar, as it has no bearing on the remedies.

Consent of the Respondent

157. Section 1 of the Protection of Privacy Law prescribes that "A person will not invade the privacy of another without his consent". The Appellant claims that once the Respondent expressed her consent to the writing of the book, its publication is no longer a prohibited invasion of privacy. The District Court discussed this argument at length and its conclusion was resolute: "It should be determined that not only did the Plaintiff not give her informed consent to the invasion of her privacy, but the Plaintiff also made clear to the Defendant before the publication that she forbids him from including in the book any details that may lead to her identification" (paragraph 65 of the judgment). I accept the ruling of the District Court, based on the materials brought before it. It is a ruling on a matter of fact. As known, the court of appeals is not in the habit of intervening in matters of this type, and there is no good reason to deviate from the rule. I will, however, briefly address the legal aspect of consent to invasion of privacy.

158. It is inarguable that the Respondent expressed before the Appellant her objection to the publication of the book several times. According to the Appellant's claim, this objection was preceded by consent. What is the nature of this consent and can one withdraw therefrom?

159. Various scholars have expressed their position that "Consent may be compared to a contract, and the principles of contract law will apply to consent" (Protection of Privacy Law above, on page 45); and that "There is no impediment to the application of the principles of contract law to consent" (Private Space, page 100). Despite the noticeable similarity, scholars have pointed to the difficulty in the "blind application" of contract law: "Although it appears that the principles of contract law apply to the element of 'consent', the protection of privacy laws give rise to dilemmas that are not always resolvable through contract law. Thus, for example, it may be that a person who gave consent will withdraw the consent he gave: the basic principle in contract law mandates enforcement of the obligation. However, in our opinion, this remedy is not necessarily suitable in the event of withdrawal of consent to relinquish the right to privacy. The personal nature of the consent to relinquish privacy and the elevation of the right to privacy to the rank of a basic right, require the interpreter to use additional tools to examine 'the consent', in addition to contract law. When a person withdraws his consent to relinquish his privacy, one should not, in our opinion, impose the ordinary law of enforcement on him and publish information that invades his privacy in reliance on previous consent. A person should be allowed, primarily in circumstances that concern intimate information, the ability to withdraw his waiver of his right to privacy against monetary compensation if the party who relied on the waiver of privacy has been damaged as a result" (see Protection of Privacy Law above, 46; for similar positions see: Private Space above, page 100-104); The Law of Privacy and the Media above, on pages 537-538).

160. It appears to me that a person's consent to invasion of his privacy is not the final word. The constitutional status of the right, the hard personal nature of invasion of privacy, may place the remedies for the withdrawal of consent in a position that differs from the one under contract law. Enforcement may possibly be unjustified in circumstances of severe invasion of privacy, compared with monetary compensation that may be justifiably awarded due to the withdrawal of consent, if it caused damage. According to a "parallelogram of force" between the severity of the invasion of privacy and the validity of the consent, the milder the invasion the greater the chances of receiving an enforcement remedy; the more grave the invasion, the more the balance will tilt towards avoiding enforcement, while granting the possibility of a compensatory remedy. In the case at bar, as aforesaid, the District Court rightly ruled that there had been no consent. There had been the explicit objection of the Respondent to the inclusion of a detail that could bring to her identification.

Conclusion

161. The Appellant's freedom of speech "collides" with the Respondent's right to privacy. His artistic freedom, as reflected in the book he has written, harms the Respondent's good name. The autobiographical work has many notable virtues. However, the book in question is actually a documentary book disguised as a work of fiction – as the District Court has ruled – and its invasion of the Respondent's privacy is grave and severe. We are concerned here with two constitutional rights – freedom of speech and the right to privacy - and, in principle, neither takes precedence over the other. In our ruling, we have examined whether the weight of the benefit that will arise from the fulfillment of one right exceeds the weight of the damage incurred by the other right. Our in-principle conclusion is that on the constitutional scale, freedom of speech will prevail in a situation of mild and medium infringement on the right to privacy against a severe violation of freedom of speech; the right to privacy will prevail when the violation of freedom of speech is mild or medium and faced with an intense impingement on the core of privacy. We implemented the principle, according to the circumstances of the matter and the book in question, and we have found that there is little fiction and great harm. A grave and severe invasion of the Respondent's privacy, whereas, on the other hand, there is a medium violation of the Appellant's freedom of speech. The identification of the Respondent in the Appellant's book as the female-protagonist, together with a detailed description of her inner life circle, including matters that are manifestly intimate, outweigh, in their aggregated weight, the infringement on the Appellant's freedom of speech, in which ideal and self-interest are intermingled.

162. Were the Appellant seeking to hold a photography exhibition in which he displayed the Respondent with him in the nude, it appears that an injunction would have been issued, in order for him not to do so. All the more so the book, where he portrayed the Respondent's body in her own bedroom and also exposed the depths of her soul and her innermost secrets. It is thus just that the District Court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the publication of the book.

163. Therefore, I propose to my fellow-justices to deny the appeal and leave the judgment of the District Court standing. I further propose that the Appellant be charged with the payment of trial costs and legal fees to the Respondent in the amount of ILS 75,000.

Justice

Deputy Chief Justice M. Naor:

1. My fellow-justice, Justice Sohlberg, has laid out an extensive review. It appears to emerge from his review that were the case before us heard in the courts of the United States – the result would have been different. The result of disqualifying a book that has been written is a difficult result and ought to be kept for exceptional cases. I am afraid that the case at hand is such a case.

2. It appears that in his book, more than the Appellant sought to write about the female-protagonist, he actually sought to write of the male-protagonist, the experience of a man who leaves his home mentally and physically in a gradual process, first for short-lived affairs, and eventually for a relationship with the female-protagonist. The relationship with the female protagonist began when the male-protagonist was married and the relationship continued after the male-protagonist left his home. The work describes the difficulties in the relationship of the male-protagonist with his longtime wife, and with his children, difficulties that eventually also harm his relationship with the female-protagonist, for whom he cannot make room for in his world. It is not the female-protagonist who is at the center of the plot, although the female-protagonist and other women (to a lesser degree) hold an important place in the plot. The plot is centered on the man who leaves his home.

However, in his writing, at the center of which is the male-protagonist, the author has breached permitted boundaries and severely invaded the Respondent's privacy. Things could have been written differently to begin with. My fellow-justice rightly noted, following the findings of the District Court, that things were written in such a manner so that even a distant person who knows the Respondent would recognize that it was about her. The standard sentence appearing on the internal side of the book cover, that the plot of the book and the characters mentioned therein are all the product of the author's imagination and that any connection to living persons or characters is purely coincidental – does not reflect the situation as it truly is. This being the case – there was no room for various descriptions, which it would not be right to specify, that run as a common thread throughout the entire book. There was also no room to share with the reader the heroine's secret thoughts and her sex life. The Appellant wrote his book as he did while ignoring that grave invasion. We cannot illustrate the severity of the invasion with the details contained in the book, because such details would also constitute an invasion of privacy. It is sufficient for me to note that my words with respect to the serious invasion have been written after reading the book in full.

Although, as aforesaid, it could have been done differently to begin with. In the hearing we suggested allowing non-trivial changes in the book, but this was not achieved. We cannot assume the role of "chief editor" and the role of the one directing changes in a literary novel in a judgment. According to my impression, things could have been written differently to begin with, without significantly compromising artistic freedom, yet the Appellant wrote what he did in a manner that completely ignores the harm to the Respondent.

3. Despite the considerable difficulty I feel as to the need to censor a literary work – at the end of the day, I join my opinion with the opinion of my fellow-justice, Judge Sohlberg, and all while emphasizing that disqualifying a literary work should be done in rare cases. However, the case before us is, as aforesaid, such a case.

Deputy Chief Justice

Justice S. Joubran:

1. I concur with the thorough and comprehensive judgment of my fellow-justice, Justice Sohlberg. I will briefly note the reasons specified by my fellow-justice that have led me to this conclusion.

2. Firstly, the case before us gives rise to a complex question pertaining to the correct balance between the Appellant's freedom of speech and the Respondent's right to privacy in the framework of Section 18(3) of the Protection of Privacy Law, 5741-1981 (the "Protection of Privacy Law"). The section prescribes a balance between the right to privacy and the freedom of speech and public's right to know. In this context, I agree with the approach of my fellow-justice, whereby it is the court's role to pour substance into this basic formula, and in the case at bar – interpret it in view of constitutional principles (paragraphs 53, 68 of his opinion; L.C.A. 6902/06 Zadik vs. Ha'aretz Newspaper Publishing, paragraph 10 (August 13, 2008)).

3. In my opinion, in the balance between two constitutional rights of equal status, the highroad is to take a conciliating approach with the aim of allowing both rights to coexist by means of a proportionate impingement on one at the expense of the other (see and compare: H.C.J. 2481/93 Dayan vs. Chief of the Jerusalem District, 48(2)456, 474-475 (1994); A.P.A. 398/07 The Movement for Freedom of Information vs. the Tax Authority, paragraph 53 (September 23, 2008) ; A.P.A. 9341/05 The Movement for Freedom of Information vs. the Government Companies Authority, paragraph 31 (May 19, 2009); Ruth Gavison "Prohibition on a Privacy-Invading Publication – the Right to Privacy and the Public’s Right to Know" Civil Rights in Israel – a Collection of Essays in Honor of Haim H. Cohn 177, 204, 219 (1982)). In this spirit, we have tried to conciliate between the parties in the hearing we held on the appeal, and to reduce the invasion of the Respondent's privacy and allow the publication of the book. However, most regrettably, this attempt was unsuccessful. Only then, in the absence of the option to reconcile the rights, the path of a binary decision should be taken and one right preferred over the other (see: H.C.J. 1435/03 Jane Doe vs. the Disciplinary Court for State Workers Haifa, PD 58(1)529, 537-539 (2003)).

4. Secondly, the scope of the protection of speech is determined according to the rationales it fulfills. This court has held that the three rationales underpinning freedom of speech are the exposure of truth, individual self-fulfillment and the reinforcement of democracy (H.C.J. 399/85 Kahana vs. the Israel Broadcasting Authority, PD 41(3)255, paragraphs 14-16 of the judgment of Justice (his former title) A. Barak (1987) (hereinafter: "Re Kahana"); Ilana Dayan-Orbach "The Democratic Model of Freedom of Speech" Iyunei Mishpat 20 377 Chapter A (1996)).

5. In my opinion, although it is undisputed that the Appellant's book is protected under free speech, most of its underlying rationales (with an emphasis on the exposure of truth, as will be specified here) do not apply to the work, certainly not fully. In this context, I will note that a considerable part of the Appellant's claims, both before us and before the District Court, was based on the argument that this is a work of fiction, and therefore cannot in fact invade the privacy of the Respondent. In view of this, I accept the position of my fellow-justice that the rationale of "exposure of truth" does not fully apply to the book (paragraph 149 to his opinion). It is noted that it is written in the beginning of the book, black upon white:

"The plot of the book, the characters mentioned therein and their names are all the product of the author's imagination. Any connection between the plot of the book and events that occurred in real life, as well as between the characters mentioned herein and their names and characters or names of persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental".

6. In this state of affairs, I find it difficult to determine that the book helps "To ensure freedom of speech in order to enable various and diverse ideas and views to compete with one another. From this competition – and not from a governmental dictation of a one and only 'truth' – will truth float and rise up, as, in the end, the truth will prevail in the battle of ideas" (Re Kahana, in paragraph 14). In view of this, I believe that the scope of protection to be granted to the book is not broad whilst on the other side stands the Respondent's right to privacy in its clearest sense, and the latter should prevail.

7. On these grounds, I concur with the judgment of Justice N. Sohlberg.

Justice

Ruled as aforesaid in the judgment of Justice N. Sohlberg.

Rendered today, Nissan 24, 5774 (April 24, 2014).

Permitted for release today, Iyar 22, 5774 (May 22, 2014).

The judgment was sent in its entirety to the parties' counsels, and, at our request, they suggested light changes and omissions in order to prevent a situation where the contents of the judgment reveal details whose publication would undermine the injunction prohibiting the publication of the book. The main omissions and changes were incorporated into the language of the aforesaid judgment. We therefore allow the release of the judgment in its reduced format herein, while the prohibition on exposure of the names of the litigants and identifying details about them, as well as the judgment in its full format, still standing.

Deputy Chief Justice                               Justice                                            Justice

__________________

The copy is subject to editing and wording changes. Heb 11089540_009.doc

Information Center, Tel. 077-2703333; website, www.court.gov.il

Special Tribunal 1/50

ESTHER SEEDIS

v.

CHIEF EXECUTION OFFICER AND SHMUEL SEEDIS

In the Supreme Court sitting as a Special Tribunal under Article 55

of the Palestine Order in Council, 1922.

[July 28,1954]

Before Agranat J., Landau J., and Rabbi  Y. Hochman ¹⁾

Family Law - Husband and wife - Income from wife's property during marriage - "Matter of marriage" - "Suits regarding marriage" - Palestine Order in Council, 1922, Articles 51 and 53 - Jurisdiction - Rabbinical Courts.

            In a suit between husband and wife before a Rabbinical Court, it was held that the husband by virtue of a usufruct accorded to the husband by Jewish law, was entitled to receive the rent of a certain property registered in the Lands Registry in the wife's name. The Rabbinical Court had purported to exercise jurisdiction under Article 51 and 53 of the Palestine Order in Council, 1922, in terms of which "suits regarding marriage" or "matters of marriage" are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the religious courts. The wife petitioned the High Court of Justice to restrain the levy of execution on the property referred to, and as the matter related to the jurisdiction of the religious courts, it was referred by the High Court of Justice to the Special Tribunal constituted under s. 55 of the Order in Council.

            It was held by the Special Tribunal that the expressions "suits regarding marriage" and "matters of marriage" referred to above are not restricted to suits or matters concerning the existence of the marriage tie, but also cover claims for the enforcement of rights, including rights to property, which are derived from the status of marriage, and that the Rabbinical Court, therefore, had correctly assumed jurisdiction in the present case.

Palestine cases referred to:

(1)   S.T. 1/28 - Hayeh Sarah Alpert v. Chief Execution Officer, Jerusalem and Others ; (1920-1933), 1 P.L.R. 395.

(2)   C.A. 240/37 - Palestine Mercantile Bank Ltd. v. Jacob Fryman and Another ; (1938), 5 P.L.R. 159.

(3)   C.A. 72/31 - Ibrahim Elias Nasr v. Nijmeh Elias Nasr; (1920-1933), 1 P.L.R. 648.

Israel cases referred to :

(4)   H.C. 116/49 - Esther Seedis v. Chief Execution Officer, District Court, Jerusalem ; (1950). 4 P.D. 266.

(5) C.A. 376/46 - Aharon Rosenboim v. Yona Miriam Rosenboim; (1950), 2 P.E. 5.

(6) C.A. 16/45 - Yosef Albrance v. Yohanan Shmeterling ; (1950), 4 P.D. 573.

(7) C.A. 26/51 - Shimon Cotik v. Tsila (Tsipa) Wolfson ; (1951), 5 P.D. 1341.

(8) S.T. 1/49 - Aharon Rosenbaum v. Sheina Miriam Rosenbaum ; (1953), 7 P.D. 1037.

(9)   C.C. 367/49 - Malka Zilbershtein v. Yohan (Yohanan) Zilbershtein ; (1950/51), 3 P.M. 137.

English cases referred to:

(10) Parapano and Others v. Happaz and Others ; [1894] A.C. 165.

(11) In re Martin, Loustalan v. Loustalan ; [1900] P. 211.

Cyprus case referred to :

(12) Despinou Theophilo v. Haralamba Abraam ; (1895), 3 C.L.R. 236.

Levitsky and Mack for the petitioner.

Mizrahi for the respondents.

AGRANAT, J. giving the judgment of the court. The question we have to answer is whether the Rabbinical Court, at the time it heard this case, had exclusive jurisdiction to determine the claim of a husband to compel his wife to hand over to him the income of her property of the kind known in Jewish law as nichsei melog1⁾. We say "at the time" because counsel for both parties agreed that in view of section 2 of the Women's Equal Rights Law, 1951, the institution of "nichsei melog" has no further place in Israel substantive law.

            This question has been referred to us for consideration by the High Court of Justice after it had been petitioned by the wife in the case of Esther Seedis v. Chief Execution Officer, Jerusalem (4), for an order restraining the Chief Execution Officer from enforcing the judgment of the Rabbinical Court which was given on June 22, 1947. This judgment was to the effect that the wife's property and its income were charged according to Jewish religious law in favour of the husband ; that the husband was entitled to collect from the tenants the rent of a house at 16, Ben Yehuda Street, Jerusalem, which was registered at the Land Registry, Jerusalem, in the name of the wife: and that "the wife could do nothing to prevent him".

            We should note at once, however - and counsel for the husband has not contested this - that the judgment of the Rabbinical Court cannot be made effective because of the provisions of Section 10 of the Jurisdiction of Rabbinical Courts (Marriage and Divorce) Law, 1953. There are two reasons for this:

(a) The judgment was given before the State came into existence ;

(b) The judgment was given in the wife's absence.

            For the purpose of our decision we assume - and counsel for the parties have not claimed otherwise - that at the time the claim was entered the parties were members of the Jewish Community and Palestinian citizens.

            The High Court in its judgment (4) summarised the contentions of the parties with regard to jurisdiction as follows : -

            "Counsel for the husband claimed that enjoyment of the income of nichsei melog was one of four things to which a husband became entitled on marriage, that this right was therefore the result of the marriage tie and that consequently the claim to enforce it was the same kind of claim as was included in Article 53(1) of the Palestine Order in Council, 1922, under the term 'matters of marriage' ; that, furthermore, the Rabbinical Court gave to its judgment the heading of 'Disputes in a matter of marriage'. To this the answer of counsel for the wife was that Article 53(1) mentioned 'matters of marriage' and not 'matters resulting from marriage' nor 'matters connected with marriage'. This meant that if it were correct to consider the right of a husband to the income of nichsei melog as a matter resulting from marriage, then a claim to enforce this right was not the same as 'a matter of marriage' but a matter which came under the law of property - and as far as personal status was concerned, it was neither important nor essential but of secondary consideration, and for that reason Article 53 (l) did not apply to such a claim at all."

            Counsel for the parties again repeated these arguments in this court. Mr. Levitsky for the wife, however, added a new point. He said that even if this kind of claim must be considered in law to belong to "matters of personal status", although it was not included in the definition contained in Article 51 of the Order in Council, still it was not a "matter of marriage" nor was it one of the matters which were subject to the sole jurisdiction of the Rabbinical Courts as provided in Article 53(1), in which case it might be that the Rabbinical Courts would have jurisdiction to deal with the husband's claim to the income of nichsei melog but that this jurisdiction was subject to the consent of the parties and consequently was not exclusive.

            Further, Mr. Levitsky relied on three judgments : -

(a) that of Cheshin, J. in Rosenboim v. Rosenboim (5) ;

(b) that of Olshan, J. in Albrance v. Shmeterling (6) ; and

(c) that of Kennet, J. in Zilbershtein v. Zilbershtein (9).

            We should like, first of all, to discuss the problem whether, for the purpose of deciding the question of jurisdiction, it is necessary to consider this kind of claim as a matter of personal status, assuming that the institution of nichsei melog was not one of the matters that was included in the definition in Article 51. This question was referred to by Silberg, J. in the case of Cotik v. Wolfson (7), but was not decided as it was not necessary to do so. In our opinion the clear language of the second sentence of Article 51(1) of the Palestine Order in Council, 1922 - and particularly the word "means" - leaves no doubt that with regard to status the provisions of this section create a numerus clausus, as Silberg J. aptly puts it.

            Also in Article 47, where the legislator conferred jurisdiction on the civil courts in matters of personal status, he emphasised the words "as defined in Article 51". Hence when the legislator apportioned, in the Palestine Order in Council, the jurisdiction of the courts in matters of personal status between the civil courts on the one hand and the religious courts on the other, he meant this to be only in respect of those matters which were set out in Article 51 and no others.

            The conclusion, therefore, is that if it is at all possible to consider the claim for the income of nichsei melog as a matter of personal status, then this is only because it is included in the term "suits regarding marriage" in Article 51(1) or in the term "matters of marriage" in Article 53(1).

            But before we answer the question whether these terms would also cover matters connected with nichsei melog, it would be as well to explain shortly the nature of this institution. When a man marries he becomes entitled, according to Jewish law, to the income of two kinds of property belonging to his wife, (a) nichsei tzon barzel and (b) nichsei melog. Nichsei tson barzel comprise property which the wife brings as dowry to her husband and for the safety of the capital of which he remains responsible. As the Shulhan Aruh puts it: "If they are lost, it is his loss - and if they increase, it is his increase. Similarly if they depreciate or are stolen - the loss is his." (Shulhan Aruh, Even Ha-Ezer, 85, B.) Property which the wife brings to the husband does not become nichsei tson barzel so as to make the husband liable for it "unless its value had been assessed in a definite sum of money or he had expressly assumed responsibility for it" (ibid., C.). Nichsei melog, on the other hand, comprise property for which the husband is not responsible and the income of which he is entitled to enjoy. Should the capital decrease or increase, the loss or the profit will be that of the wife. ("Should they be lost, or increase, or depreciate or be stolen - it is she who benefits or loses, as the husband is entitled to receive only the income" (ibid., B).)

            With regard to claims from third parties to the income of either kind of property, the husband is entitled to institute the same even without the express authority of his wife. (Tur, Even Ha-Ezer, 85.)

            And finally one has to distinguish, of course, between property which the wife brings to her husband as explained above and property which she keeps under her sole control in consequence of arrangements to that effect made between herself and her husband.

            As we have already indicated, the problem before us is reduced to the question whether the claim of the husband to the income of his wife's nichsei melog should be considered in law as a "suit regarding marriage" or as a "matter of marriage". If that was the intention of the legislator, he would have done well had he given a separate heading to the definition in Article 51(1) as for instance "effects of the marriage" or "matrimonial property" - expressions usually used for the purpose of classification in private international law (see Wolff, Private International Law, 2nd Edition, p. 146, Lorenzen, Selected Papers on Conflict of Laws, p. 88) - or, as counsel for the wife suggested, "matters arising from marriage" or "connected with marriage" or the like.

            While this is a consideration which weighs heavily with us in favour of the wife, we do not consider it decisive. For it is inconceivable that the legislator also intended to exclude from the general connotation of the expression "matters of marriage" claims for restitution of conjugal rights and such claims are certainly in respect of rights resulting from or connected with marriage.

            The truth of the matter is that the interpretation of the term "matter of marriage" which is found in Article 53(1) must not be so restricted as to exclude a claim for a right resulting from the status of marriage, that is to say, it must not be restricted to matters that concern the one and only question, namely, the existence or nonexistence of the marriage tie. In other words we must conclude that the term "matter of marriage" has a wider and more comprehensive meaning than that conveyed by the sole word "marriage" and that it also covers claims for rights which certainly come into being as a result of the marriage tie and which give content and significance to the status of marriage.

            When we put the problem in this light to Mr. Levitsky, he gave us a twofold answer: (a) That one cannot consider rights which are created by the marriage tie and which have a direct bearing on the married life of the couple, such as conjugal and maintenance rights, as being the same as rights which are essentially in respect of claims for money or property pure and simple even though they too are the result of the marriage status ; (b) that in any event when the legislator intended to grant jurisdiction in a matter of money to the Rabbinical Courts, he gave a separate heading to it and used the word "alimony", therefore it must be presumed that he, the legislator, did not intend to grant jurisdiction to these courts in other matters relating to money or property.

            We are of the opinion that neither of these answers solves our problem. As to the first one has to remember that on the one hand it is possible to consider even rights to money or property as having a direct influence on the marriage and it was for just this very reason that these rights were granted by various laws either to the husband or to the wife according to the particular point of view of the legislator of the law applicable ; and this is also the view of Jewish law. The Levush. 85, 17. (Rabbi Mordechai Yaffe) says as follows: -

"Should the husband wish to part with (literally : sell) land which belongs to the nichsei melog of the wife, for several years at a yearly income all of which he proposes to receive in advance, he will not be permitted to do so..... 'because of the welfare of her home'. This means that her interests are better served by the land remaining with him and that he should receive a small income yearly in order that the expenses of the home should be adequately provided for.... "

            (See also Tur, Even Ha-Ezer, 85.)

            On the other hand, the payment of alimony to a wife, during her husband's desertion, whilst she is living apart from him, need not necessarily have any influence on the married life of the couple.

            From the point of view of jurisdiction therefore it is difficult to find a logical basis for the distinction between the right to payment of money such as in the nature of alimony and the right to payment of money or to property on a different claim which arises in favour of a husband or wife from the marriage itself. The common feature is that both are claims for the fulfillment of obligations arising from the status of marriage.

            The second answer which was suggested by counsel for the wife is more weighty, but again it is not sufficient to turn the scales in her favour. This is because it may well be said that the special emphasis on the term "alimony" was made in the wording of the Article so as to distinguish payments due on account of alimony from those due on account of maintenance. Indeed even if the legislator had not specifically used the term "alimony" we would have been obliged, in the words of Assaf, J. in the case of Rosenboim v. Rosenboim (5), "to consider as a matter of marriage the money which a husband is bound to give to his wife for her upkeep..... because it is one of the main obligations resulting from marriage". To this Olshan, J. also agreed in the case of Albrance v. Shmeterling (6).

            Similarly in the case of Alpert v. Chief Execution Officer (l), the Special Tribunal held that the claim of a widow for maintenance from the husband's estate was a "matter of marriage" because her right to "maintenance" resulted from the marriage "and that it was therefore within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rabbinical Court." Clearly, this interpretation completely contradicts the contention of Mr. Levitsky that monetary rights cannot be included amongst the claims that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rabbinical Court because they were not specifically mentioned in the Order in Council. Indeed, Mr. Levitsky was not unaware of this contradiction and has therefore suggested that we ignore altogether the rule established in Alpert's case (l), as the only way of overcoming the difficulty. But we are of the opinion that this is no way at all, especially as counsel for the wife has given no special reason which would justify our refusal to follow a rule has been valid for many years.

            Let us now examine this problem in another light. When the Mandatory legislator divided the jurisdiction in matters of personal status between the courts, his general purpose was to preserve the position as it was during Turkish rule. For this too is one of the tests that we have to consider - in accordance with the opinion which was expressed in the case of Rosenbaum v. Rosenbaum (8). In this connection, what Young has to say (in Corps de Droit Ottoman, Vol. II, p. 2) is important. As translated by Smoira, P. in the case of Rosenboim v. Rosenboim (5), it is as follows :

"The various communities of non-Moslem Ottoman subjects have complete jurisdiction to decide all questions which concern each community. . . . . in matters of marriage, including dowers, mohar, maintenance as between husband and wife (nafaka) and divorce".

            The importance of these words is twofold. First, Young includes in the word "marriage", dowers, mohar, and maintenance, that is to say, all the range of monetary rights resulting from the marriage tie. Second, the inclusion of suits for dower and mohar within the jurisdiction of non-Moslem religious courts means that, as far as Jews are concerned, the Rabbinical Courts do have jurisdiction to deal with claims concerning properties of the wife which are nichsei tson barzel and nichsei melog. For as regards jurisdiction, there is no difference in principle between the rights of a husband in these two kinds of property of his wife and the right to "dower" and "mohar".

            At the end of the chapter from which the above quotation was taken, Young gives the text of Hatti Humaioun of 1856. This is a political declaration which was made by the Sultan, in paragraph 12 of which he confirmed once more the privileges in juridical matters which the non-Moslem communities had enjoyed from time immemorial in the Ottoman Empire.

            And in the case of Parapano v. Happaz (10), the Privy Council relied, inter alia, on this declaration by the Sultan, when it held that matters of "marriage, divorce, alimony and dower" were in the Ottoman Empire within the jurisdiction of the religious courts of the non-Moslem communities which, it was presumed from the start, would apply in such cases the religious law of each community.

            It is true that the question that had to be decided in the Para-pano case (10) by the Privy Council was regarding the law that had to be applied. But in order to come to the conclusion that it was the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church that had to be applied (on a question of legitimacy of an Ottoman subject who was a member of that Church) the Privy Council proceeded from the fact that in the Ottoman Empire the juridical jurisdiction in these matters was in the tribunals of these communities.

            But, generally speaking, choosing which law to apply is one thing and deciding which court has jurisdiction is another. Only here both these problems have become tied up together because of the historical background just mentioned.

            And following this rule, the Supreme Court of Cyprus held in the case of Theophilo v. Abraam (12) that the canon law of the Eastern Church applied to a claim for the return of a dower. In so doing the court defined the term "dower" as understood in that law as follows :

"..... the object of the dower is to provide a fund for the purposes of defraying the burdens and obligations arising from the existence of the marriage ; that the husband has the control of the property given as dower ; that the property is the property of the wife and must be handed back by the husband on the dissolution of the marriage to the person giving the dower, in those cases where the dower-giver has stipulated this to be done, or to the wife. The husband is only liable for loss or damage to the property, where such loss or damage arises from his own fraud or his own negligence. The husband will not be liable for any loss or damage, provided he had shown such care as he ordinarily takes in the management of his own property."

            It seems to us that any one who examines this definition of "dower" will notice at once the similarities in essentials that exist between this institution of the canon law of the Eastern Church on the one hand and the rights according to Jewish law of the husband in the property which the wife brings to him on marriage as above described, on the other hand. And does this not make it clear that in the days of Ottoman rule suits concerning the latter as well as the former were within the jurisdiction of the non-Moslem religious courts?

            We have found further support for this view - that is that the jurisdiction of the Rabbinical courts was equal in extent to that of the courts of the various Christian communities in this field - in the Firman of August 21, 1854, which the Sultan Abdul Majeed issued to Mr. Albert Cohen, the emissary of the Central Organization of French Jewry (Consistoire Central des Israelites de France). This reads as follows :

            "All the rights, the privileges and all the immunities which had been granted or which will be granted in the future to any Christian community whatsoever shall apply at one and the same time to the Jews as well, for the paternal heart of His Majesty the Emperor will never permit that there should be the slightest discrimination amongst his non-Moslem subjects."

            (Extract from Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, 1854, Vol. 3, p. 346 ; see also Jewish Encyclopaedia, Vol. 4, p. 156, under Albert Cohen ; also Young, Vol. 2, p. 153, note 5).

            Also Mr. Goadby, in his book on International and Inter-religious Private Law in Palestine, lays down that according to Article 51 of the Palestine Order in Council, suits regarding marriage include suits regarding "dowry" because "this was the Turkish practice" and "consequently such suits are within the 'exclusive jurisdiction' of religious courts according to Articles 53 and 54 of the Order in Council" (ibid.

pp. 116, 158, 159, note 2).

            In short, the examination of the problem in the light of the general tendency of the Mandatory legislator to leave the position in this field as it was during Ottoman rule, leads us to the conclusion - although this must not be taken yet as absolute proof - that a claim by a husband for the income of nichsei melog is a matter of marriage which was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rabbinical Court.

            Let us try to solve this problem in the light of the answer to the question, to which particular branch of the law does the right of the husband to the income of his wife's property belong? It seems to us that if we are bound in law to consider this right as coming under the matrimonial law and not under that relating to property, we will be bound to conclude - for the reason given below - that indeed only the Rabbinical Court had jurisdiction to deal with a claim of this nature. Because we are dealing with laws which were promulgated by an English legislator, we will have to rely on English jurisprudence to find our answer. This means that we would have to ask ourselves the question, to which branch of the law would an English court consider a claim to belong, which resembled in essentials a suit for the income of property like nichsei melog ? We have to remember in this connection that according to the common law the husband became entitled on marriage to his wife's movable property and the income of her immovable property was also subject to his absolute control so long as she was married to him (Lush on Husband and Wife pp. 5, 7). It is true that this law was altered by the Married Women's Property Act, 1882. The common law further provided, in its time, that a will made by a woman when she was unmarried, became null and void on her marriage and this rule was adopted by the English legislator in s. 18 of the Wills Act, 1837, which is still valid today. In the case of In re Martin (11), the Court of Appeal held that the rule which made a woman's will null and void on her marriage, when applied to a will whereby she disposed of movable property, was part of the matrimonial law. The reason for this is due to the provision of the common law that the movable property of the wife passes on her marriage to her husband and on marrying she loses the power to dispose of it or to leave it by will to another person. As Vaughan-Williams, L.J. put it (at pp. 239-240) :

"And I think that his wife's property in the movables having thereby ceased, it follows, quite independently of the eighteenth section of the Wills Act, that this loss of the power of disposition put an end to her will while it was still ambulatory...   for I think that the rule of English law which makes a woman's will null and void on her marriage is part of the matrimonial law, and not of the testamentary law."

            It should be noted, in parenthesis, that in the above case, the marriage which made the will null and void took place before 1882 and thus the judgment shows the position as it was before the enactment of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882.

            We learn from this English judgment, therefore, that the general rule of the common law to the effect that the movable property of the wife passes to her husband on her marriage is also part of the matrimonial law. This means that the right of the husband to the income of nichsei melog, which he has claimed in the case before us, belongs to this same branch of the law.

            If this is correct, it is reasonable to conclude that, at the time, the Mandatory legislator intended that a claim of the kind described above should be determined, in the absence of a general matrimonial law, according to the law of each respective community as far as members of a recognized religious community and Palestine citizens were concerned. And Goadby (at p. 159, ibid.) lays it down that "the effect of marriage upon the property of the spouses in Palestine, whether movable or immovable, will be governed by the personal law." But if the rules of the personal law apply in such a suit, then there is no escaping the conclusion that only a religious court has jurisdiction to entertain it and this for the following reason : let us suppose for one moment that the contrary was the correct conclusion, that is to say that it was the District Court which had jurisdiction in this matter. In that event it would be unable to apply the personal law as required by Article 47 of the Order in Council, in as much as the District Court can apply this law only in matters of personal status as defined in Article 51 and the very grant to the District Court of jurisdiction is based on the assumption that the claim here was not one relating to "marriage" and therefore was not one of the matters included in the definition of personal status which was given in Article 51(1). The conclusion is that the only possible source of the hypothetical authority of the District Court to determine a claim for the income of nichsei melog is to be found in Article 38 of the Order in Council, 1922, and at the hearing the provisions of Article 46 of the Order would have to be applied by the court. It follows also that, as there is no local matrimonial law and as the right of a husband in his wife's property must be decided according to the matrimonial law, the court would have to apply those very rules of the common law which the English legislator had found it necessary to do away with more than 70 years previously. The District Court would also have to act in accordance with the principle which was laid down in the case of Palestine Mercantile Bank Ltd. v. Fryman (2), to the effect that where there was no Ottoman provision dealing with any particular branch of the law, the relevant rule of the common law must be resorted to. Now in other branches of the law as well, the prospect also exists in this country of having to resort to certain rules of the common law which are no longer applicable at all in England itself and it is most difficult to believe that the Mandatory legislator intended at the time that this should be the case in connection with the matrimonial law in so far as it would be applicable to members of the recognised communities who were Palestinian citizens.

            Further it is very doubtful in our opinion - also because of the judgment in the Mercantile Bank case - whether the District Court would have the right to apply the rules of the common law at all to a matter of this kind, and this is because of the proviso at the end of Article 46 of the Order in Council to the effect that these rules apply "so far only as the circumstances of Palestine and its inhabitants . . . . . permit".

            For instance, according to the law of her community, the Moslem wife had unfettered control over her property. (Fyzee, Outline of Muhammadan Law (1949) at p. 99 ; also Wilson, Muhammadan Law, 6th edition, at p. 126.) It is inconceivable that the Mandatory legislator intended to impose on her the disabilities of the common law on this subject which we have mentioned.

            In such a case, therefore, the District Court would be faced with a lacuna in the local law. It might then be said as was said by Kennet J. in Zilbershtein v. Zilbershtein (9), at p. 140, that, "as there was no provision in the civil law to the contrary, the rights of the wife were equal to those of the husband and the marriage had not deprived her of these rights". Should the District Court be of this opinion and decide the issue in such a case along these lines, then our answer would be that there was nothing in that argument that could weaken the conclusion which must follow from the view - and there can be no other view - that at the time the Mandatory legislator was not willing that there should be a lacuna in connection with the matrimonial law applicable to a married couple who were Palestinian citizens belonging to a recognised community with regard to the relations between them not in connection with the rules regulating the rights which such had in the property of the other. We have to add further that Kennet J. cited Article 1771 of the Mejelle and section 82 of the Ottoman Law of Civil Procedure as authority for saying that the Ottoman Law contained a positive provision to the effect that the wife "had the right to own separate property without any limitation" and that this law had remained unchanged "till now". With all respect, we are not at all convinced by these citations. Article 1771 of the Mejelle concerns the onus of proof when husband and wife "disagree as to the things in the house in which they dwell". It owes its origin no doubt to the rule in Islamic law that a married women has full control over her property. (Vide supra.) For as is well known, the "provisions of the Mejelle are based on the substance of Islamic law". (See the introduction of Frumkin J. to his Hebrew translation of the Mejelle). As regards the second Law that was cited, section 82 is to the effect that the provisions of section 80 of this same Law were not to apply "when the contracting parties are husband and wife". It is obvious that the section concerns only the case where one spouse desires to prove against the other the existence of rights which had been acquired through an oral agreement between them. This is clear also from the judgment of Nasr v. Nasr (3), on which Kennet J. relied. For a claim to enforce a right derived from such an agreement does not come under the matrimonial law at all. Consequently it should certainly surprise no one to find that in the course of the hearing of that case "no one disputed nor doubted the fact that the wife had the right to possess separate property without any limit" and we must not conclude from this case that, before the enactment of the Women's Equal Rights Law, such a rule existed in the civil law.

            The inevitable conclusion therefore is that the claim which we have been considering for the income of nirchsei melog did not come within the jurisdiction of the District Court but that it came within the term "a matter of marriage" and was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rabbinical Court. For the sake of clarity it is as well to summarise the reasons which have led us to this conclusion as follows:

(a) If the claim in question has to be considered at all as a matter of personal status according to the definition contained in Article 51(1) of the Order in Council, then this is because of the terms "suits regarding marriage" and "matters of marriage" which are used in that article and in Article 53(1);

(b) These terms should not be restricted only to suits that are concerned with the existence or not of the marriage tie. They should also cover claims for enforcing certain rights which spring from the marriage status as, for example, restitution of conjugal rights. From the point of view of jurisdiction, there is no logical basis for differentiating claims in respect of these rights and claims in respect of rights in property or money which are also derived from the marriage status;

(c) In the case of Alpert (1), too, the claim of the widow for maintenance out of her husband's estate until she received what was due to her under the Ketuba was held to be a "matter of marriage" which was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rabbinical Court;

(d) But for the specific use of the term "alimony" in the Order in Council, as already mentioned, it would have been possible to consider as a "matter of marriage" also the claim of a wife for maintenance during the lifetime of the husband;

(e) But because this term was specifically used by the Mandatory legislator in the Order in Council, it does not necessarily follow that when this is not the case we should come to a different conclusion. For it is quite possible that the intention of the legislator was to stress the differences which he had emphasised regarding the kind of claim in connection with alimony and maintenance when he divided the jurisdiction between the civil and the religious courts;

(f) During the period of Turkish rule, the claim of a Jewish husband to rights in his wife's property was considered as a matter of marriage which was within the jurisdiction of the Rabbinical Court. This fact may serve as a pointer to the intention of the legislator of the Order in Council in view of his well known desire not to make changes, generally speaking, with regard to the jurisdiction which the religious courts of the communities had at that time in matters of personal status;

(g) The provisions of a law which grant to a husband, on his marriage, rights in his wife's property, belong to the matrimonial law. It is logical to suppose that at the time the Mandatory legislator intended that the personal law should apply in the case of a married couple who were members of a recognised community and Palestinian citizens, whereas, according to Article 47, the District Court could not apply the personal law of the parties unless the dispute concerned one of the specified matters of personal status;

(h) We must not ascribe to the Mandatory legislator an intention that the District Court should apply the rules of the common law regarding marriage when deciding on a claim by a husband for rights which he had in his wife's property in a dispute of a married couple of the kind mentioned above. Nor is the common law applicable in such a case as if there were a lacuna in this branch of the local civil law. The inevitable conclusion therefore is that jurisdiction to hear such a case was not given to the District Court but that it was given exclusively to the religious court.

            We should like to consider another point. We noted above, where we explained the nature of the institution of nichsei melog, that the husband was entitled to claim from third parties the income from this kind of property without the necessity of receiving authority from his wife, that is to say in his own name. In his judgment in Albrance v. Shmeterling (6), Olshan J. was of the opinion that the personal law does not apply in a dispute between the husband and a third party. At p. 295, the learned judge says as follows: -

"Even if we were to suppose that their personal law was Jewish religious law, and even if according to this law every promissory note given to the wife for rent must be considered as 'income' belonging to the husband – it does not yet follow from this, that commercial relations between a married woman and a third party are subject to the personal law applicable to husband and wife in their relations with such other. If the position was as claimed by counsel for the respondent, we would reach a conclusion which was unreasonable".

And at p. 296, Olshan J. added:

            " 'A suit regarding marriage', as set out in Article 51, is a suit between two parties to a marriage... The fact that according to Article 47 a dispute in such a case has to be determined according to the personal law of the parties is no evidence that any other person in his commercial dealings with a married woman is, according to the Order in Council, subject to the personal law applicable to a matter of marriage between herself and her husband and according to which each acquires certain concrete rights by virtue of the marriage. The interpretation given to Article 51 by counsel for the husband... is likely to bring choas to the commercial and economic life of the country. It would make every commercial transaction with a married woman dangerous and insecure and this state of affairs would not be confined to just Jewish married women, for Articles 47 and 51... apply to the whole population of the State".

            There is no conflict between this view and what we are deciding in this case, because rights which result from the relationship between husband and wife are one thing and the husband's standing vis-a-vis rights acquired by his wife in transactions with third parties is another. The fact that a certain law regulates the relations between husband and wife does not necessarily mean that the same law also regulates the relations between the husband and third parties as regards rights which the wife acquired thereby (compare Wolff, ibid., p. 355). In other words it is not impossible to consider as "a matter of marriage" the husband's claim to the income of his wife's nichsei melog when it is made against the wife and to regard the husband's claim to the income of the same property as "a matter which is subject to the law of property" when made against a third party.

            We therefore hold that the Rabbinical Court did have jurisdiction to determine the claim which was made by the husband for the income of nichsei melog of his wife and to give the judgment it delivered on June 22, 1947.

Judgment given on July 28,1954.

H. C. J 125/49 JULIETTE COLETTE AMADO v. 1. DIRECTOR OF THE IMMIGRANTS' CAMP, PARDESS HANNA 2. YOSEF AMADO In the Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice. [April 16, 1950] Before: Smoira P., Dunkelblum J., Assaf J., Cheshin J., and Agranat J. Habeas Corpus - Order for custody of children by foreign court - Enforcement of order by High Court - Recognition of foreign judgment - Family Law - Interests of children paramount consideration. Subject to the paramount consideration of the interests of the children concerned, where a competent foreign court has granted a right of custody to husband or wife, the High Court will issue an order of habeas corpus to enforce that right. Radoyevitch v. Radoyevitch (1930 Sess. Cas. 619) referred to. A Civil Court in Paris granted a decree of divorce to the petitioner and second respondent (being respectively the wife and the husband), who were French nationals domiciled in France, and declared that the petitioner was entitled to the custody of the children, a girl aged seven years and a boy aged four and a half years at the time of the application, but ordered that the second respondent have access to them at stated times. On one of these occasions the second respondent smuggled the children out of France and brought them to Israel, where they were living with him in an immigrants' camp. The Paris Court reaffirmed the petitioner's right to custody and annulled the second respondent's right of access. The petitioner applied for an order in the nature of habeas corpus against the second respondent. It was her intention to take the children back to France; the second respondent declared that he would bring up and educate the children in Israel. Held: making absolute an order to deliver the children to the petitioner, 1. If the actual right to custody was the subject of a bona fide dispute, petitioner's claim would be a matter of personal status which must be brought before the District Court or the Rabbinical Court. But here the question of custody had already been determined, and since the application was to enforce a right already judically recognised, the High Court had jurisdiction to grant an order in the nature of habeas corpus. 2. A foreign judgment given by a competent court which determined the right to custody of the children of a marriage as a matter incidental to a decree of divorce, is a judgment in rem binding on all the world, and will be recognized in Israel, subject to the question of the welfare of the children. 3. A foreign judgment validly pronounced is presumed to be free of error both as to fact and as to law, and it is immaterial, from the point of view of its recognition in Israel, that it may be subject to appeal. 4. The fact that the parties, who bad been married in Paris both by civil process and before a Rabbi, had not been divorced in accordance with Rabbinical Law, might render invalid a second marriage contracted by either of them, but it could not affect the question of custody of the children. 5. In the circumstances of this case, and for the reasons set out in the several judgments of the court, the interests of the children were not such as would require the court to decline to give effect to the foreign judgment. Palestine cases referred to : (1) H.C. 24/40; Morris Louis Silverman (Caspi) v. Pearl Buxenbaum (Harubi), and others; (1940), 1 S.C.J. 95. (2) H.C. 118/43; Joseph Flint v. E. Jones and another; (1944), 1 A.L..R. 4. (3) H.C. 45/43; Levana Bar-Emun v. Moshe Bar-Emun; (1944), 1 A.L.R. 34. (4) C.A. 85/40; Jamil Abyad v. Isaac Ancona and another; (1944), 1 A.L.R. 34. English cases referred to: (5) The Queen v. Maria Clarke; (1857), 119 E.R. 1217. (6) Antoniye M. Radoyevitch v. Florence M. Webb of Radoyevitch; 1930 S.C. 619. (7) Salvesen of Von Lorang v. Administraton of Austrian Property; (1927) A.C. 641. (8) Stuart v. Moore; (1861) 9 H. L. Cas. 439. American cases referred to: (9) Halvey v. Halvey; 67 S. Ct. 903. Stoyanovsky for the petitioner. Michaeli for the second respondent. Glucksmann, Deputy State Attorney, for the Attorney-General. SMOIRA P. The petitioner, the mother of two children, applied to this court for an order in the nature of habeas corpus against their father, the respondent, directing him to deliver their two children into her care. She also asked for an interim order pending a final order. Both the father and the mother are French nationals. An affidavit submitted to us by the petitioner in support of her application contained the following allegations. The petitioner is the mother of the two infants, Jules Regine Amado, born on March 28, 1943, and Gilles Henri Amado, born on July 16, 1945. On June 2, 1949, the Civil Court in Paris granted a decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner against her husband, Yosef Amado. According to the decree, the custody of the children was granted to the petitioner, and their father was ordered to pay the petitioner the sum of 8,000 Francs a month for the maintenance of each of the children. The father was permitted to see the children twice a month and to have them with him during the second half of the school vacations. In accordance therewith, the petitioner handed the children over to the father on September 1, 1949, and the father was to have returned them to the mother on October 2; but the father failed to do so. The father, moreover, did not pay the mother the children's maintenance from June 1949 onwards, and on October 98, 1949, on a charge of "neglect of family" he was sentenced in absentia to four month's imprisonment, and ordered to pay the mother 20,000 Francs and the costs of the case. Since the mother could not find the children, she applied to the court in Paris. and on December 12, 1949, obtained a further judgment putting an end to the father's right to see the children or to have them with him. The petitioner attached to her petition a certified copy of that decision, which may be translated as follows: "Session of the Court (référé) of December 12, 1949, before the Deputy President and his assistant, the Registrar, undersigned, hearing the case in the absence of the President. "Whereas according to the judgment given in the presence of the parties by Tribunal No. 4 of this Court on June 2, 1949, a decree of divorce was made in favour of the wife, "And whereas that judgment granted to Mme. Amado the custody of the two children, Jules Régine, born on March 28, 1948, and Gilles Henri, born on July 16, 1945, and ordered the terms of that judgment to be carried out for the time being (exécution provisoire), ''And whereas it has been proved that Amado was sentenced by Tribunal No. 14 of this Court to four months' imprisonment for neglect of family, "And whereas, on the other hand, it has been proved that Amado, into whose care the children were committed during the second half of the long vacation, has disappeared with them and has not returned to his place of abode, "And whereas in view of the gravity of that act, Mme. Amado ought to be allowed to seize the two children committed to her custody in any place where they may be found and that any right of M. Amado to access to the children ought to be ended completely, "And whereas the matter is urgent, "Therefore, on the grounds aforesaid, we decide in the absence of Amado, who did not appear in the case although he was lawfully summoned, that as regards the substantive matter the parties must apply to the Court, but from now on and for the time being in view of the urgency, we authorise Mme. Amado to seize the infants Jules Régine and Gilles Henri Amado, the custody of whom was granted to her by this Court, in any place where they may be found, with the assistance of the Police Commandant and, if need be, with the assistance of the armed forces; "Finally terminate the right of M. Amado to access to the children, "Order the execution of this order for the time being and immediately, and even before its registration, because of its urgency, "Appoint M. Statte to deliver this order to the defendant who has not appeared and to preserve this order. "Given in Paris on the 12th day of December, 1949." (Signatures and certifications) When the mother discovered that the father had left France with the children and was keeping them in an immigrants' camp in Pardess Hanna in Israel, she, too, left France in the footsteps of the father and the children, and she also is at present in Israel. While she was trying in France to discover the whereabouts of her children, she says that she learned from her friends that the father had threatened to take revenge if they tried to take his children away from him, and for that reason did not turn directly to him and demand the return of the children to her. According to her, she even feared for the lives and safety of her children when the father should find out about her applying to this court. The petitioner is a teacher in a secondary school in Paris, and earns her own and her children's upkeep, and her parents in Paris have supported her whenever her husband has refused to carry out his obligations towards the family. Relying on this affidavit, this court issued an order nisi against the first respondent, the director of the immigrants' camp, Pardess Hanna, and against the father, the second respondent, to appear and show cause why they should not bring the said minor children before this court, and why they should not be delivered to the petitioner, and an interim order was further made directing the father to deliver the children to the first respondent, to remain in his care and control until the final hearing of the matter, and ordering the said director, for the well-being and safety of the children, not to permit the father to be in the company of the children unless a responsible person is also present and in charge. An affidavit in opposition that was filed by the father in reply to the order of habeas corpus did not, in fact, deny the main facts set out by the petitioner in her petition, save that the father states that he has never said that he would kill the children, their mother and himself if they tried to take the children from him. Tie describes this as a pure fabrication and the product of the petitioner's diseased imagination and as an illegitimate means of influencing the courts. As for the decree of divorce made against him on June 2, 1949, he argued that the judgment is not final and absolute, that he, the husband. has lodged an appeal against it, through the offices of his lawyer, to the Court of Appeals in Paris, and that the appeal has not yet reached its turn for hearing. According to him, the petitioner deliberately refrained from producing to this court a copy of the decree of divorce, since from its contents one might learn the nature of the proceedings before the court in Paris, the petitioner's character and the background to the family dispute. Dr. Stoyanovsky, counsel for petitioner, in reply to a question put to him by the court, confirmed that an appeal against the decree of divorce of June 2, 1949, was lodged before the respondent left France. The respondent devoted a large part of his reply to the order nisi to allegations against his wife, the petitioner, allegations that he also brought before the court in Paris in the divorce case. According to him, his wife does not attend to the running of the household or to the care of the children. She left their home because a man of no principles, a trickster from Bulgaria. by the name of Michael Ibenoff, who purported to found a special mystic sect at Sévres in France, introduced his wife into the sect together with many other women. At one time, this matter caused a considerable scandal in France, and Ibenoff was sentenced by a French court to four years' imprisonment and deportation from the country. The respondent sought to prove his allegations in the French court, in particular that his wife was suffering from mental disease as a result of Ibenof's influence, and that she was incapable of looking after the children; and he complains that the French court granted a decree of divorce against him without referring to his defence and found that the substance of his allegations were a ground for a religious divorce. He fears that his children will not receive a Hebrew and Jewish upbringing if they remain in the custody of the petitioner, especially in France or some similar place, and even fears that the mother will convert them to the Christian faith, or to the sect of that same Bulgarian who still has his followers in France amongst the women believers. He says that whenever he met his children, they were very depressed and would tearfully recount to him that their mother was not in fact looking after them, and they besought him to save them. Accordingly, out of concern for the fate of the children and in order to enable them to live traditional Jewish lives, to which he had always been devoted despite his living in the Diaspora, and in order to put at the disposal of his people the benefit of his skill and knowledge as a doctor, he decided to immigrate to Israel with his children. The father states that the children have been happy since they have been with him in Paris and in Israel. He has made endeavours to place the children in a suitable educational institution or in Youth Aliya 1) These are the main outlines of the story which was presented to as in the affidavits of the mother and the father. The examination of the mother and the father by counsel for the parties revealed the following additional facts : Dr. Amado was born in Izmir and went to France at about the age of 14 where he received his education. He is a doctor and is now 43 years of age. His wife, a native of France, is a teacher in a secondary school in Paris, and she is 30 years old. The couple were married in 1942, both according to civil law and Jewish law, before a rabbi in France. According to the petitioner it was her parents, and not her husband, who insisted that the marriage be solemnized before a rabbi. No steps have yet been taken towards obtaining a divorce according to Jewish law. She is ready to receive a religious divorce after the civil decree of divorce becomes final. At first the mother educated the children herself, and later entered them in a kindergarten conducted in accordance with the Montesori system, and if the children are committed into her hands by this court, she will take them to France and bring them up as heretofore. The mother confirmed, in answer to a question by the father's counsel, that the director of the kindergarten is a Jewess who has been converted to the Christian faith, and added that in the institution there are also two Israeli girls who are learning the Montesori system. She denied that the director of the institution asked her to send her children to take lessons in the Catholic catechism and she said that, if the latter were to do so, she would immediately withdraw the children from the institution. She further testified that her hus band had never objected to the children being educated in a Montesori institution. She describes her husband's fear lest she introduce her children into the Christian faith or Ibenoff's sect as a pure fabrication. Her husband contended in the divorce case that she belonged to the Ibenoff sect and that her state of mind had been influenced by Ibenoff. She had, indeed, on the advice of one of her teachers at the University, once taken an interest in Ibenoff's books, but had at no time belonged to that sect. She received a letter from Ibenoff dated March 31, 1945, and a photostat copy of it was produced to the court by counsel for the respondent. In that letter, Ibenoff invited her to go one morning to Sevres in order to participate in the prayers and exercises at break of day. In response to that letter, the petitioner visited Sevres, and on one or two later occasions visited Ibenoff's home together with her husband and children. According to her, Ibenoff's sect appeared to be a philosophical sect. Her husband also went to meetings of the sect, and at no time did he say to her that it was a sect of madmen, and that contact with members should be avoided. The petitioner knows that Ibenoff was sentenced in 1948 to four years' imprisonment for offences of inciting children to acts of indecency and immorality. She had indeed been impressed, at first, by the theories of Ibenoff, the central theme of which was the bringing closer together of the spirit of the East to the spirit of the West, but when she saw that his acts bore no relation to his preaching, she became confused. When she heard of the charges against Ibenoff, she said to one of her acquaintances that she was about to lose a good friend who had guided her with his advice. But the case affected her relationship with Ibenoff and his sect. She had taken an intellectual interest in the sect, and now all that was over for her. She had discovered that his ideas are also to be found in another philosophy, in a less complex form. The petitioner denied in her evidence any connection between the Ibenoff affair and her divorce petition. In reply to the respondent's contention that she is not capable, mentally or emotionally, of looking after the children, the petitioner testified that at the time of her studies she interested herself in the humanities, French literature, Latin, Greek and philology in general. She holds the degree of licencie (agrege) es. letters. At the secondary school in Paris she serves in the dual capacity of French teacher and secretary to the management. The number of pupils at the school is 1,100, between the ages of 11 and 19. There are at least eighty teachers engaged in teaching there; there is an assistant mistress in the school who deals with medico-social problems, and the petitioner has to examine all the social cases and the question of giving scholarships, which calls for the examination of the cases and of the family background of the pupils. As for the children's state of mind, she testified that from time to time, when the children returned from their visits to their father, they related to her what the father had said about her, and were very irritable and upset. The father gave evidence, inter alia, that he received no official notice of the decree of divorce of June 2, 1949. He saw an unconfirmed summary of the divorce decree in July, 1949, in his lawyer's file, and it may be that the decree was also delivered to tile latter. He presumes that an appeal was lodged on September 7, 1949; on September 14 he left France. He has not received to this day any news of the lodging of the appeal. He was present with his wife at the time of the first "reconciliation" hearing on April 14, 1948. In the first "no-reconciliation" order, the custody of the children was provisionally granted to his wife, and he was given access to them once a fortnight. On July 16, 1948, a second hearing took place for the purpose of reconciliation. Then, too, he was present with his wife. The existing order regarding the custody of the children was confirmed. He appealed against both the orders relating to the right to the children's custody. The appeal was heard on February 17, 1949, and he did not succeed in his appeal. On March 28, 1949, he filed a petition with the court known as référés, asked that they return his children to him, and set out his grounds for the petition. As a result of that petition, the court appointed a lawyer to examine the children's condition. According to the witness, the lawyer did not carry out his task properly. Instead of visiting the children at their place of residence with the petitioner's father, they were brought to the lawyer's offices, and the latter stated in his report that the children were in a normal state of health, and that they were being well looked after. The father knew that he had to return the children to their another on October 2, 1949, but, he states, he took them with him in order to save them. He has never said that his wife was out of her mind, but said that she showed signs of mental instability. He is still of that opinion after hearing her in this court. According to him, he did not live specifically in accordance with Jewish tradition, but he has been a Zionist for some time and his family is Zionist. He holds a number of invitations to Zionist meetings from the year 1947. He was a member of the Zionist Doctors' Association in Paris. There are three main legal questions which arise from the petition under consideration. (a) If the petitioner should have filed an action in the district court for custody of the children, is she nevertheless entitled to apply to this court for a. writ in the nature of habeas corpus? (b) If a petition for habeas corpus is a proper remedy, will this court recognise the decisions of the court in France, which granted the petitioner the custody of her children, as a basis for its decision on such a petition? This second question gives rise to two subsidiary questions:- (1) Does the fact that the French decree of divorce is still subject to appeal affect the petitioner's present right to the custody of her children? (2) Does the fact that the couple are not as yet divorced according to Jewish law prevent or delay the recognition of the decisions of the court in France relating to the right of custody? (c) If the answer to the last question is in the negative, does the rule that the benefit of the children is the real test justify this court in the present case in altering the decisions of the court in France regarding the right to the custody of the children? The first of these three questions is one of the jurisdiction of this court in the hierarchy of courts in Israel. The father's counsel, Mr. Michaeli, argued that the matter in question is not in the nature of habeas corpus, which is included within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Justice by section 7(a) of the Courts Ordinance, but is a case between parents over the right to the custody of the children, and is therefore one of the matters of personal status of foreigners and within the jurisdiction of the District Court (Article 64 and Article 51 of the Palestine Order in Council, 1922). On the other hand, the petitioner's counsel, Dr. Stoyanovsky, emphasized at the outset of his argument what he is not asking of this court. He stated that he is not asking for execution of the divorce decree granted by the Tribunal in Paris on June 2, 1949, or of the order made by the same court on December 12, 1949. He is not, moreover, asking for guardianship of the children for the mother. He is not even claiming the right to custody of the children, for he says that the mother is legally entitled to the custody of the children by virtue of the judgment and the orders made in France in favour of the mother. He is no longer in need of a determination of the right of custody in favour of the mother by this court. His application is for recovery of the custody and possession of the children of which the father has deprived the mother in an unlawful manner, and accordingly the children are in the unlawful custody of the father. For that reason, he contends, the matter falls within the scope of section 7 of the Courts Ordinance and the jurisdiction of the High Court. Before I consider the authorities, let me examine the two provisions of the law on which each one of the opposing parties relies. The definition of matters of personal status in Article 51 of the Order in Council speaks of "suits regarding marriage or divorce. . . guardianship" and others. Section 7(a) of the Courts Ordinance, which provides for the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court of Justice, speaks of "Applications (in nature of habeas corpus proceedings) for orders of release of persons unlawfully detained in custody." In the present case, the divorce proceedings have already taken place in France, and it has been decided in favour of the petitioner that she is entitled to the custody of the children. There is no disputing the fact that the respondent took the children into his custody in breach of what was decided by the courts in France and brought them to Israel. Indeed, he contends that there were grounds and reasons for his doing so. But the fact remains that he is the one who had defied the courts in France. Counsel for the mother once more emphasizes that she is not asking for her right to the custody of the children to be determined. That right has been determined for her abroad, and therefore there is no case here in a matter of personal status. In bringing her petition in the nature of habeas corpus before this court, she relied on decisions made in her favour abroad in order to found her contention, which is the basis of her petition, that the children are in the hands of the father in unlawful custody, and therefore she claims their release. I do not hesitate to say that this contention seems to me to be sound. To start with, I shall consider the question as if the decisions in the mother's favour had been made here in Israel. The question as to what is the binding force of decisions made abroad (the second of the three questions above mentioned) is a problem of private international law, which I shall consider later. In order to make absolutely plain the question of jurisdiction and the definition of the border-line between a claim for custody and a petition for habeas corpus, it would be better to regard the matter separately from any problem of private international law. In this respect, the two parties were right in citing as authorities on the question of jurisdiction the judgments of the Supreme Court (during the period of the Mandate) which were delivered in cases in which no question arose as to the effect of a foreign judgment in this country, for the question of jurisdiction and the definition of the border-line between a case concerning the right to custody and a petition for habeas corpus is a question that arises, as I have already mentioned, from the provisions relating to the jurisdiction of the different courts in Israel. Counsel for the respondent cites as authority Silverman v. Buxenbaum and others (1). The truth of the matter is that that authority is not on all fours with the present case. That judgment contains only a few lines, and one gathers that the case concerned a family dispute which broke out over the question whether a child that was staying with relatives of his deceased mother should remain with them in accordance with his mother's will, as it was alleged, or should return to his father, and the father filed a, petition for habeas corpus. No judgment had been given in that matter before it came before the High Court. During the course of the hearing, the father undertook "to apply to the appropriate court to have these matters settled", and all that the court decided was that the child would remain with the mother's relatives until a decision was given on the part of the competent court. It is difficult to see how counsel for the respondent can rely on that judgment. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner cited in support of the jurisdiction of this court authority from the following two judgments : Flint v. Jones and another (2); Bar-Emun v. Bar-Emun (3). The first judgment, Flint v. Jones (9), was delivered in a case based on a petition of habeas corpus. The petitioner, the father, demanded the handing-over to himself of his son from his divorced mother and her second husband. The petition was founded on a judgment of the Principal Rabbinical Court of Jaffa and Tel Aviv, according to which the custody of the child had been given to the mother until he reached seven years of age, and thereafter to his father. The mother, apparently, refused to obey the judgment of the Rabbinical Court, although at first the child had been handed over to the father but had been taken away from school after that by the mother's second husband without the knowledge of the father. The court acceded to the father's petition, issued an order nisi in the nature of habeas corpus against the mother and her second husband and, in the absence of an affidavit by the respondents, made it absolute. In the second case, Bar-Emun v. Bar-Emun (8), the petitioner (the mother) obtained a judgment of the Rabbinical Court against her husband, and this ordered the child to be delivered to the mother, but the Execution Office refused to execute the judgment, on the ground that the child was in the hands of her father-in-law, and the latter had not been a party to the case. Later, the mother sought the execution of a second judgment of the Rabbinical Court, which had been given in the absence of the father-in-law, for the delivery of the child to her. The Chief Execution Officer refused to execute that judgment also, since the child's grandfather had never consented to the jurisdiction of the Rabbinical Court, whereupon the mother applied to the High Court of Justice on a petition of habeas corpus, and won her case. The common denominator in the two cases - Clint 6. Jones (2), and Bar-Emun v. Bar-Emun (3) - is that the right to the custody of the children had been considered and determined by a competent court before the matter came before the High Court, and this court, relying in each case upon the decision previously given by such competent court, issued the order of habeas corpus. Admittedly, neither of those two judgments is of much value in deciding the problem that we are considering, for the first one was given without any reply on the part of the respondent, and neither of them defined the borderline between a case based on the right to custody and a petition for habeas corpus. But the judgments were given on the assumption that habeas corpus is the remedy wherever it is preceded by a decision of a competent court as regards the right of custody. That assumption is, indeed, correct. The rule may be expressed in this manner : so long as the right to the custody of the child has not yet been determined by the competent court, and the very right itself is the subject of a bona fide dispute, this right can only be determined by the court. A claim of this kind is a matter of personal status which, in accordance with Articles 47, 51-54, and 64 of the Palestine Order in Council, 1922, is within the jurisdiction of the District Court both as regards Israel nationals and as regards foreigners or, under certain conditions, is within the jurisdiction of the religious courts. Where the right has been determined by a competent court in favour of one of the parents, and the parent acts in breach thereof, and takes the child out of its lawful custody or continues to detain it unlawfully, then the remedy is the filing of a petition in the nature of habeas corpus. If it be said that a petition to take a child out of the hands of a person unlawfully detaining it is indeed a form of petition of habeas corpus, because you are demanding to put an end to the detention, but that the demand to deliver the child to whomsoever is entitled to possession of it is a claim to the right of custody, the judgment in Queen v. Clarke (5), decided in 1857, shows us that the two demands cannot be separated, for they are linked to one another. In that judgment, Lord Campbell C.J. said :- "The question then arises, whether a habeas corpus be the proper remedy for the guardian to recover the custody of the child, of which he has been improperly deprived. Certainly the great use of this writ, the boast of English jurisprudence, is to set at liberty any of the Queen's subjects unlawfully imprisoned; and, when an adult is brought up under a habeas corpus, and found to be unlawfully imprisoned, he is to have his unfettered choice to go where he pleases. But, with respect to a child under guardianship for nurture, the child is supposed to be unlawfully imprisoned ashen unlawfully detained from the custody of the guardian; and when delivered to him he child is supposed to be set at liberty." The rule is thus summed up in Halsbury, Hailsham Edition, Vol. 9, page 717, article 1219:- "A parent, guardian, or other person who is legally entitled to the custody of a child can regain such custody when wrongfully deprived of it by means of the writ of habeas corpus. The unlawful detention of a child from the person who is legally entitled to its custody is, for the purpose of the issue of the writ, regarded as equivalent to an unlawful imprisonment of the child." (Compare also, Halsbury, Vol. 17, p. 666, article1383.) As is well known, the institution of Habeas corpus is likewise one of the corner-stones of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore it may be worth mentioning that there, too, it serves as an appropriate remedy for carrying into effect a decision which has been given on the question of the right to custody of the children in a previous divorce case. See the Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 89, Title "Habeas Corpus", section 46, p. 586, and the judgment of the United States Supreme Court of the 3lst March, 1947, in the case of Halvey v. Halvey (9). As regards the value of American judgments on questions of the kind under discussion here, see Dicey, Conflict of Laws, 6th Edition, pp. 10, 11 (note 16). I have dwelt at some length on the first question although I have no doubt as to the true position. A number of cases have recently come before this court in the form of habeas corpus in matters concerning the right to the custody of children, and this is the first case in which we have been called upon to give judgment upon it : and I hope that my expanding on the subject here at some length will enable future cases to be dealt with more briefly. The second question that arises here is, what is the force of the judgments and orders made in France in relation to the courts of our country? Must this court recognize those decisions as a basis for its decision in the case under consideration? That is, as stated, a problem of private international law. Authority for that may be found in Abyad v. Ancona (4), in which the Supreme Court confirmed what had been decided in the Haifa District Court by Evans, R.P., in these words:- "The defendant argues that the Order in Bankruptcy made in Egypt must come within the Ordinance Cap. 75 or else is of no effect. Similarly he argues that all international law is founded in treaties and that before the Courts could give any effect to this order there must be some agreement or treaty on the matter between the Palestine and Egyptian Governments. We do not agree with either proposition. It is true that agreements have been made regarding reciprocal enforcement of judgments, but these are largely matters of procedure. The Courts had to consider the weight and effect to be attached to foreign judgments long before. The Defendant says we are not bound by what is called Private International Law. We think we are. Those Rules (i.e. the rules of private international law) enforced in the English Courts are part of the English Law to which we must have recourse in the absence, as admittedly here, of any local provisions on the matter in question. Rules 124 and 125 of Dicey's Conflict of Laws show clearly that an order, such as that of the Egyptian Court... would be effective in England... and must therefore be treated as effective here for the same purpose." Now let us examine the English rules of private international law in this field as applied to the present case. A first general principle is to be found in Dicey's book on the Conflict of Laws (6th Edition, 1949, p. 11) :- "Any right which has been acquired under the law of any civilised country which is applicable according to the English rules of the conflict of laws is recognised and, in general, enforced by English courts, and no right which has not been acquired in virtue of an English rule of the conflict of laws is enforced or, in general, recognised by English courts." In explanation of that rule, it is stated there (p. 11) :- "Their object and result is to render effective in one country, e.g., England, rights acquired in every other civilised country, e.g., France or Italy, the law of which (of France or of Italy) is applicable according to the English rules of the conflict of laws." That is the general rule; and what are the particular rules touching the present case ? Rule 71 in Dicey's book (p. 868) says: - "The Courts of a foreign country have jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage of any parties domiciled in such foreign country at the commencement of the proceedings for divorce. This Rule applies to - (1) an English marriage; (2) a foreign marriage." Rule 83 (p. 400):- "Any foreign judgment is presumed to be a valid foreign judgment unless and until it is shown to be invalid. " Rule 84 (p. 401):- "A valid foreign judgment is conclusive as to any matter thereby adjudicated upon, and cannot be impeached for any error either)(1) of fact; or (2) of law " Rule 93 (p. 430):- "A valid foreign judgment... of divorce... has in England the same effect as a decree of divorce...granted by the Court in England, as regards the status of the parties to the marriage which is dissolved..." As to the particular item in the matter under consideration, the right to the custody of the children, an incidental remedy generally given in a divorce case, the following is to be found in the commentary in Dicey to Rule 71, p. 878 :- "There is also a lack of ad hoc authority as to the extent to which English Courts will recognise the power of foreign Courts to exercise control in matters of the property and parental rights of the persons whose marriage is affected by their decrees similar to that exercised by English Courts when granting ancillary relief in matrimonial causes. But the principle that similar authority should be conceded to foreign Courts is implicit in the cases which decide that the ancillary decrees of foreign Courts will not be recognised if the principal decree cannot be recognised in England." In illustration 5 (ibid., p. 878) :- "H and W are divorced by a Court in France, where they are domiciled, and the custody of the child is given to the father. W takes the child to England. He claims the custody of the child, and is entitled to the aid of the English Courts, which will, however, have regard to the welfare of the child." In the commentary to the aforementioned Rule 93 (ibid., p. 431) :- "Subject to the paramount consideration of the welfare of the children, effect would presumably be given in England to a foreign decree dealing with custody of children in connection with matrimonial questions, as a similar power belongs to English Courts." As authority for that, the judgment in Radoyevitch v. Radoyevitch (6), is cited (note 64). The considerable importance attached to that judgment for the problem with which we are dealing immediately becomes apparent, and so I propose to quote at length from the judgment of Lord President Clyde:- "The petitioner was at the date of his marriage to the respondent and is still a domiciled Jugoslavian, resident in Belgrade. The respondent was at the date of the marriage a Scotswoman, and the marriage took place in 1921 in London. The parties lived together in Belgrade until after the birth of their only child, a daughter, in 1922. Thereafter the respondent, taking the child with her, came back to this country, where she and the child have since remained. In 1928 the petitioner raised an action before the Spiritual Court of the Archbishopric of Belgrade against the respondent for divorce on the ground of desertion, and for custody of the child of the marriage... the Spiritual Court granted decree of divorce, and ordered the child to be delivered to the petitioner... The Supreme Spiritual Court (in Jugoslavia) approved of it subject to certain modifications, one of which was to give the respondent right of access... The respondent refuses to obtemper the order of the Spiritual Courts, and the present petition is brought in order to invoke the aid of this Court (in Scotland) in making it effective. "The important point in the case is raised by...the respondent's contention... namely, 'that, it being highly prejudicial to the health, welfare, and interests of the child that her custody should be awarded to the petitioner, the petition should be refused.' It will be - observed that this contention assumes that the question of awarding the custody of the child to one or other of the parties is an open question in this Court, notwithstanding the foreign judgment; and the assumption may be at first sight warranted by the fact that the prayer of the petition includes a crave that the petitioner should be found entitled to the custody. But, as appears from the averments in the petition, the petitioner's real case is that the foreign judgment already entitles him to the custody; and therefore any finding of the kind prayed for can only refer to a finding that the petitioner is - in respect of the foreign judgment - so entitled. Nevertheless, the respondent argued that the circumstances alleged by her provide sufficient grounds on which this Court should refuse its aid in making the foreign judgment effective. The petitioner's answer was two-fold; he maintained that this Court has no jurisdiction to review or alter what has been judicially done by the competent Court of the domicile, but is bound to give effect to its judgment. ...It is to be observed that... none of the allegations made by the respondent... relate to circumstances which were not extant and fully known to the respondent prior to the proceedings in Belgrade, and therefore pleadable by her - quantum valuerint- in those proceedings. It is also to be observed that there is nothing in the proceedings before the foreign Court, as far as appears from the pleadings in the present petition or from the documents before us, which is inconsistent with our Scottish notions of substantial justice. "The unlimited scope attributed in Administrator of Austrian Property v. Von Lorang, (1997) A.C. 641, to the doctrine of the universally binding effect of foreign judgments in rens goes to support the petitioner's argument. The custody of a child, like its tutory (which may or may not include the right of custody), is clearly a question of status; and proceedings for the disposal or regulation of the custody must therefore be regarded as proceedings in rens. The foreign judgment was pronounced in an undefended action, and was thus a decree in absence, although preceded by inquiry. In a case not dealing with status this might perhaps be enough to prevent the judgment from being res judicata between the petitioner and the respondent...; but the specialty of a foreign judgment in rem is that, so long as it is pronounced by the competent Court of the domicile, it is binding (alike as between the parties themselves and in questions with third parties) upon the Courts of this country without further inquiry. Accordingly, the petitioner's argument is that the status rights of the parents to the custody of the child of their marriage (which status rights constitute the res) have been conclusively adjudicated upon by the competent court of their foreign domicile that is, of the husband's domicile, which is also the domicile of the child - and that this Court is precluded from inquiring into any of the matters with which the respondent's answers are concerned. The fact that the child is for the time being resident in this country and within the jurisdiction of this Court has no importance, according to the petitioner's argument, except as calling for the aid of this Court in giving executive effect to a judgment which is conclusively binding upon it. "But, after all, an appeal to this Court for that purpose is an appeal to its jurisdiction for aid in carrying out the foreign judgment, and necessarily assumes that the jurisdiction can be legitimately used for that purpose, in some way or other, over both the respondent and the child, notwithstanding that both the child in particular - are of foreign domicile. The assumption is of course well founded. In the case of Stuart v. Moore (9 H.L.C. 439; 11 E.R. 799), (in which the guardians in England claimed the handing over of an infant who was in Scotland) Lord Chancellor Campbell said this :- 'The Court of Session had undoubted jurisdiction over the case. By their nobile officiunt conferred upon them by their Sovereign as parens patriae it is their duty to take care of all infants who require their protection, whether domiciled in Scotland or not. But I venture to repeat what I laid down for law in this House near twenty years ago, 'that the benefit of the infant is the foundation of the jurisdiction, and the test of its proper exercise'." "In considering the benefit of the child, it must be kept in mind that neither in such a case as Stuart v. Moore, nor in the present case, are we concerned with any question about the choice between two claimants or candidates for the child's tutory or custody. There is already a tutor or custodier duly appointed by the Court of the foreign domicile; and the benefit of the child is relevant only to the question whether we should lend our aid by ordering delivery of the child to that tutor or custodier". Lord Sands, concurring in the judgment of the Lord President, said :- "The question before us is whether this child falls to be handed over to the custody of her father in Belgrade, or to be allowed to remain with her mother in Scotland. We are bound to regard that question in the same impartial manner us would the Court of a third country - say France - if the child were found temporarily there, and a competition arose in a French Court between the father and the mother. When the matter is so regarded, I think the law is clear. "As your Lordship in the chair points out, this application is not in substance an application to us to determine a question of custody. It is an application to us to give effect to a judgment upon that matter which has already been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction." The Court of Session examined only the terms of transfer of the child from Scotland to Belgrade and the terms of her reception there in surroundings that were unfamiliar to her. After tile court had received satisfactory answers it decided that the mother should deliver her daughter to the petitioner. I have quoted that Scottish judgment in detail, because it is the only one which deals exactly with the question before us in this case, and both in the actual facts and in the arguments, there is great similarity between the two cases. In the same way that counsel for the petitioner repeatedly emphasized before us that he is not asking us to determine the mother's right to the custody of her children, but for the recovery of the custody established in her favour by a competent foreign court, so that approach is prominent also in the Radoyevitch case (6) and was accepted there. As for private international law, the principle was unhesitatingly established in that judgment, that a foreign judgment, which determines incidentally to a divorce the right of one of the parents to the custody of the children, will be recognised. The importance of that judgment is the emphasis therein that the decision concerning the right to custody of children is in the nature of a decision in rem, with all the wide implications inherent in such a decision, binding as it does the whole world. We shall have no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion, on the basis of the rules that we have quoted from Dicey's book and of what we have quoted from the judgment in Radoyevitch (6), that we must recognise the decisions of the French Court that determined the right to the custody of the children in favour of the mother, the petitioner. There is no disputing the fact that the court in France was the competent court to try and to decide the question of the divorce between the parties. The father was present at the trial, and was represented by a lawyer. His argument that, since he was no longer in France when the court delivered its further decision of December 12, 1949, the court had no jurisdiction to make it, is an absurd argument. Here is a father who has flouted and defied the court's decision and has smuggled the children away from their mother, and yet argues that he was tried in his absence. In fact, the petitioner was entitled to found her petition to us on the main divorce decree which was granted on June 2, 1949, and which gave her the right to the custody of her children. The respondent had no real argument to raise against the content of the decree and the decisions that came after it, and, furthermore, could hardly have done so, seeing that according to the rules that we quoted above, there can be no appeal here against a foreign judgment, which is presumed to be extant and effective, on account of an error in the facts or the law. In so holding, it must be said at the same time, that the respondent did not succeed in showing us any error whatsoever in the law or on the facts in the proceedings in France. Counsel for the respondent tried indeed to argue even before us that, in any event, we should not recognise the decisions made in France on two grounds : (a) because the divorce decree is still appealable, and the rule is that foreign judgments are recognised only when they are final; (b) this court, he contends, will not regard the divorce decree as binding so long as the husband and wife have not become divorced by a religious divorce according to Jewish law, and if the actual divorce itself cannot be recognised, then the incidental decisions of the question of the right of custody cannot be recognised. Both arguments are untenable. Admittedly, it is right that, according to the rules of private international law, a foreign judgment is recognised only when it is final and conclusive. As regards a judgment in personam, the matter is covered by Rule 86 (see p. 403 in Dicey's Conflict of Laws). Moreover, as regards a decree of divorce, the question of "finality" is mentioned in the commentary to Rule 93 (p. 431). But in the same place, in Rule 86, it is laid down that a foreign judgment can be final and conclusive even when it is subject to appeal and notwithstanding that an appeal against it is pending abroad where it was given. (Compare also Martin Wolff, Private International Law, paragraph 242, p. 266.) In fact, the opposite view for which counsel for the respondent contended before us would put at nought the intention of the foreign court. For the French court held, even before it gave its judgment on the actual divorce, in its previous decisions, where the father himself gave evidence, that the mother was entitled to the custody of the children; and the judgment of June 2, 1949, it held that the orders concerning the handing over of the custody of the children to the mother were to be executed for the time being, notwithstanding any appeal and without giving security. It is clear that the intention of the court there was not to retract from the weight of its decision by the use of the word "provisoire", and to say that the handing-over of the right of custody was only for the time being. On the contrary, it regarded as urgent the arrangement of the right of custody in favour of the mother, and so, as can be seen from the insertion of the words "notwithstanding any appeal and without giving security", it provided for the immediate execution of its orders concerning the right of custody. As for the second argument concerning the absence of a religious divorce according to Jewish law, counsel for the petitioner was right in saying that we are not dealing with the question of the possibility of a second marriage on his part or on hers. It is clear that, according to Jewish law, such second marriage is forbidden, in spite of the civil divorce, unless preceded by a religious divorce. But, as stated, that question does not arise here. We are here dealing with the question of the effect of the decisions in France relating to the right of custody. The divorce decree, as a civil divorce, is effective according to French law, which applies to the parties according to Israel law (Article 64 of the Order in Council, 1922)1), and therefore the same part dealing with the right to the custody of the children is also effective. (Incidentally, the question of the right to the custody of the children can also arise, according to Jewish law, even while the marriage still subsists though the parents are separated.) . The result is that neither the appeal lodged in France nor the absence of a religious divorce, will entitle us to defer the recognition of the decisions made in France concerning the right to the custody of the children. That brings us to the last point, and that is whether the benefit of the children requires us to alter the decision of the French court. It is agreed that the established rule, and the one which most appeals to the intelligence, is that the benefit of the children must be decisive in exercising judicial discretion, even in cases of habeas corpus. But what are the factors to be taken into account in such judicial discretion? The opinion of the children themselves as to whom they want to go to cannot be sought when they are of such a tender age as are the children in the present case, in particular in habeas corpus proceedings. If authority is required for that, it may be found in the above-mentioned judgment of Queen v. Clarke (5), and in Eversley on Domestic Relations, (pp. 418-423). The parents' opinions are completely at variance. The father contends that the children are depressed when they return from a visit to the mother, and the mother contends that they are irritable when they return from their visit to the father. Their views, therefore, are of no assistance. Even taking into account the requirement of the benefit of the children, the court will not readily alter the decision of the court abroad concerning the right of custody. It is clear that each case has to be considered according to its special nature, and no hard and fast rule can be laid down here. But it may generally be assumed that before the court abroad there were more data to assist in weighing the matter than before the tribunal which is called upon afterwards in another country to recognise the former judgment. There is also special significance in the length of time that has elapsed between the decision of the original court and the decision required from the court in the other country on the strength of the judgment given abroad. In the present case, the court in France, before which all the data were available, including an examination of the state of the children, decided a short while ago in favour of the mother. What in essence did the father contend before us in order to move us to alter the decision of the court in France regarding the custody of the children? Mainly the Ibenoff affair, that I mentioned in some detail in setting out the facts. I assume that for a certain period, the mother (petitioner) was influenced by that person and his opinions, until he turned out to be a criminal. But there is no ground for not believing her, that since then, the man and his system mean nothing to her. There is no foundation for assuming, on the basis of what we heard in evidence from the two parties, that that affair influenced or will influence in any way her capacity as educator of her children. Furthermore, there is no argument here that the husband could not have put forward in the French court, and now he comes before us and claims a new factor in deciding the question of the custody of the children. We know from his evidence and from the divorce decree that the respondent certainly argued the matter of Ibenoff, and not only did the court not accept his argument, but viewed the very fact of his making allegations against his wife arising out of the Ibenoff affair as a serious insult and a grave reflection on her, and as a sufficient ground for divorce. If the French court, which was so close to the "atmosphere", held thus, are we here going to differ from it on that point? He further argued, that his wife lacks the necessary mental stability, and therefore her influence is harmful to the children. That argument, too, was submitted to the French court at various stages in the proceedings, was heard and rejected outright. Now the petitioner has given evidence before us, was examined by counsel for the respondent, and by her own counsel. Her replies were completely balanced and she gave the impression of a restrained person, despite the difficulties she has been through. We have heard about her position in the secondary school in Paris in which there are 1100 children. There, she is not only a teacher, but also assistant to the Board of Directors in dealing with medico-social questions. We have no reason for dismissing the petitioner as not being a satisfactory mother and educator, or for departing for that reason from the decisions of the court in France. Lastly, the respondent father appealed to this court saying that the custody and education of the children should be committed into his hands, contrary to what was decided in France, in view of the fact that he wishes to give them here a national-Jewish upbringing that they cannot receive in France. His counsel added that the rule of public policy calls for such a decision by us. I have the feeling that there is a lack of sincerity in the father's statements in this connection. We have not heard that before the divorce he objected to the method of education given to the children in the school in France, or that he did anything in order to give his children a Hebrew or Jewish education. According to the evidence before us, it is to be assumed that if there remained a spark of Jewish tradition in the Amado family, that spark was rather to be found in the mother's family. The suspicion which the husband projected into the atmosphere of the court, that the mother was likely to convert the children to another religion, was rejected by the mother with disgust, and I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of her words. As for public policy, this court and every judge in Israel would obviously be pleased if every Jewish child that immigrates into the country were to receive his education in Israel. But this is not the way to encourage the immigration of Jews to the Land of Israel. Heaven forbid that we should turn our country into a refuge for people who, during the course of quarrels in their married lives, smuggle their children away in contravention of the law and of justice. That way brings no blessing either to the country or to the children. My conclusion is that, from the point of view of the benefit of the children also, there is no ground for altering the decision of the court in France which gave the mother the right to the custody of her children. Accordingly, the order nisi should be made absolute as against the second respondent. DUNKELBLUM J.: I agree with the judgment of the learned President, and with its reasoning and conclusions. AGRANAT J.: I concur in the opinion of the learned President both as to the result at which he arrived and as to the grounds upon which he relied. CHESHIN J.: I concur without hesitation in the learned President's opinion, insofar as it relates to the first two questions raised in his judgment, namely, that the matter in question was rightly brought by way of petition in the nature of "habeas corpus", and that in the light of the principles of private international law, this court is required to regard the decision of the French court, which entitled the mother to the custody of the children, us the basis for its own decision. The third question however - and it is, in the opinion of all the authorities, the decisive question - namely, whether the benefit of the children requires that that decision be maintained or altered - this question, I must confess, gave me much ground for thought both while the parties and their counsel argued their case before us and when examining the great and varied mass of authorities which were brought to our attention. which the learned President dwelt at some length in his judgment, the father demanded, on the strength of a Jugoslav judgment, to have their eight-year-old daughter, born to them in Jugoslavia and taken by the wife to Scotland when she was a few months old, removed from the custody of his wife and handed over to him. Lord Sands, one of the three judges who composed the court, asked himself the question in this form : is the Scottish court bound to commit the child into her father's custody in Belgrade, or to permit her to remain with her mother in Scotland? The learned judge came to the conclusion that the court should examine the matter from an objective point of view, in the way that, say, a French court might have done, if the child had found her way temporarily to France and her father and mother were carrying on a legal battle in the same court over the right to have the child with them. "When the matter is so regarded," concludes Lord Sands, "I think the law is clear." The Lord President of the Court of Session, Lord Clyde, says in the same case :- "It is quite impossible for us to make up our minds on the balance of advantages and disadvantages ...attendant on Jugoslavian or on Scottish nationality, or on the social or educational associations of either country, and I do not conceive that such a balance could be reasonably or fairly applied to the problem of the child's welfare, even if we thought ourselves able to make it." (p. 627). I dare to express a doubt whether those considerations that were in the mind of the Scottish court, and those only, must be in our minds when we come to deal with a problem of the kind that arises in the present case. An Israel court, in determining the fate of a Jewish child within its jurisdiction, is not entitled to ignore the special position of the Jewish people or of the individual Jew among the nations of the world, and to say to itself, in the words of Lord Clyde, or by way of the illustration that Lord Sands brought : "Let us assume that we are sitting as an English Court in England or an American Court in America." This court and its members are not sitting in vacuo, cut off from reality and from the people among whom they work and create, sharing their ambitions, experiences and desires, and they are not always required to confine themselves within the four corners of a rule and to see everything from the aspect of the letter of the law applicable in other countries. In this respect, one might say that Israel is not like all other nations, and a Jugoslav child whose Scottish mother has brought him with her from Belgrade to Scotland is not the same us a Jewish child whose Jewish father has brought him to Israel from the lands of the Diaspora. The vast majority of the Scottish people resides in its own homeland, and the dangers of becoming assimilated and vanishing do not face them. In the last war, it was not bereaved of a third of its people on account of their being Scottish, and the people of Scotland living in other parts of the world are not subject to perpetual persecution and discrimination on account of their race, and the stock from which they spring. The same applies to the English, to Americans and to Jugoslavs. The Israel nation, alone of all the nations, during all the long years of its exile and through all the lands of the dispersion, almost without exception, has been wantonly persecuted for its religion, its race, its customs, its culture. Whole communities of Jews have been condemned to physical and spiritual destruction and have been utterly destroyed, and others are fighting a desperate struggle for their religion, their culture and their very existence. So well known is it that it requires no proof, that millions of our brethren, among them children of tender years, and youngsters who had hardly left their nurseries and whose parents had at one time taken them with them from the Land of Israel and brought them to the lands of the Diaspora, have been wiped out in our days and before our very eyes and the eyes of the whole world, by one of the "advanced" nations of civilisation, thinking up methods of killing which the Devil himself could scarcely have conceived, contrary to the law of nations and humanity. Can a court in Israel forget this story of annihilation, when it comes to consider the question of removing one of its children from Israel? And are we required to shut our eyes to the reestablishment of Israel in its own land, and the consequences involved for every Jew because of his being a Jew in the achievement of the hope of generations for the return of its people to its own country? The ingathering of the exiles is not just an empty phrase, and each one of us here today, and each one who is not with us today, is fully and clearly cognisant of the fact, that every Jew who immigrates to Israel aids not only the restoration of the nation and the building of the land, but also ensures his own security and future and the security and future of his children and family. A child from Israel who becomes rooted in the land of his forefathers has been freed from the dangers of assimilation and annihilation. The benefit and security of the children whose fate this court has been called upon to settle have to be seen in the light of these and similar considerations. Furthermore, in the case of Radoyevitch (6), the Scottish mother objected to the handing over of her daughter to the Jugoslav father, and gave her reasons for so doing in a long series of arguments and replies; but it was apparent there - and the Lord President, Clyde, comments thereon - that none of the mother's arguments were new, and that she could have submitted them to the Spiritual Court in Jugoslavia before the latter decided on the matter of the right of custody. She did not do so, and was therefore out of time. That, however, is not the position in the present case. Here there has been a change, an enormous change, since the day on which the French court gave its judgment. The father has opened a new chapter in his life. He has decided to settle among his own people, and to bring his children up in the spirit of Israel. I was not particularly impressed with the argument of counsel for the mother, that the father immigrated to Israel because he had kidnapped his children from their mother's home, and because he could find no other place to which to take them. The opposite is true : he took his children with him because he had made up his mind to abandon the life of exile and to live a Jewish life in his own land. It is true that he grew up and was educated in foreign surroundings, and that national values were not of particular importance to him, and that his children have been brought up in that spirit, too. But his intentions are not to be dismissed on account of his past. An enormous change of values has taken place in the outlook and inclinations of many Jews of the Diaspora since the last World War, and in particular after the establishment of the State of Israel. The fact is that he has immigrated to Israel and has brought his children with him. The fact is that, in court, he expressed his desire once more to live with his wife a normal family life, forgetting the past, should she desire to settle in Israel, but she persists in her refusal and she is content with life in the Diaspora. The fact is that, when the children were transferred to a hospital at the commencement of the Festival of Passover, he would not rest until he had succeeded in moving this court to order the children's transfer to a Jewish institution until after the Festival had ended. On the other hand, although she gave her consent to that transfer, the actual entering of the children into a non-Jewish institution was done at the mother's request, and she was not troubled by the fact that the children would be during the Festival and the intermediate days in non-Jewish surroundings. In those circumstances, I am prepared to believe the father when he declares on oath that "out of concern for the fate of the children and a desire to give them traditional Jewish lives... I decided to immigrate to Israel and to live here a quiet, Jewish life, to devote my life to bringing up my children and together with that to put my skill and knowledge in the science of medicine at my people's disposal." I weigh against that the personality of the petitioner - the mother - with her emotional tendencies, to the extent that they were revealed to us in these proceedings. I stated at the outset of my remarks that I am in full agreement with the learned President, that since the French court has committed into her hands the custody of the children, the right to custody is hers. But since the benefit of the children as at today is the true test which must apply, in view of the above stated considerations, me are not free to overlook any of the facts. The words of Lord Sands in the Radoyevitch case (6) are enlightening, when he declares in this connection :- "It is the duty of this Court to extend protection to every child found within its jurisdiction, and it may in certain cases be our duty to extend such protection even against a claim based upon a legal award of custody. The Court will not de plano in every case order delivery to the legal custodian." (p. 628). In other words, it is one thing to treat a judgment of a foreign court with the respect which is its due, and in certain cases also to recognise it, particularly in the light of the principles of private international law, it is quite another matter to consider the benefit of the child. The latter is settled according to the outlook and discretion of the judges who are called upon to determine it in each and every case according to its particular circumstances. There they are not tied to universal principles. You cannot draw an analogy in this type of case from the rules of private international law, nor will such rules be in any way affected even if the court does not uphold to the letter the judgment of the foreign court. From that point of view, considerable importance attaches to the character and capabilities of the mother, who demands for herself the upbringing of her children and the whole of their future. It must be mentioned at the outset that she gave me the impression of being a somewhat fanciful spirit, who has not yet found the way of life suitable to her. In her adolescent years, she engaged in the science of philosophy, and under the guidance of one of her teachers at the University, the Greek teacher, a near and enchanting world was opened before her in the theory of a certain Bulgarian named Michael Ibenoff. For a number of years she studied this theory, and even began to correspond, after her marriage, with Ibenoff, the creator of this theory. I did not succeed in understanding the niceties of this theory, but I heard from the petitioner that it discloses the ways of the East to the peoples of the West, that is to say, a sort of harmonious intermingling of the two differing worlds. While she is engaged in this study, Ibenoff invites her to his home, and somewhat surprisingly she becomes involved, at her very first meeting, in a conversation about her marriage to her husband. Afterwards, Ibenoff invites her - and she accepts his invitation to be present at a ceremony of "breathing exercises of the Yogi kind", "accompanied by beautiful Bulgarian songs", conducted at the first rays of dawn by men and women in the fields near the town of Sevres in France. We were given no explanation, and we do not know to this day, how this idolatry, carried on at an hour which is neither day nor night and when the whole world is fast asleep, is designed to bring the East closer to the West, but we do know that Ibenoff also founded a mystic sect, and that it was his wont to work up women and virgins from among the female followers of his sect into a frenzy, and to incite youngsters to acts of indecency and immorality. We further know that this Ibenoff, who was once given the name of the Bulgarian Rasputin by the French press, was finally caught red-handed and sentenced by a French court to four years' imprisonment. The petitioner served as a disciple to this charlatan, she participated several times in meetings of members of his mystic sect (according to her, together with her husband), and the petitioner was invited to send her children to the school that was about to be founded by the followers of that same sect. In this school, the petitioner explains and declares, it was proposed to introduce the theories of Ibenoff. When Ibenoff was put on trial, the petitioner was at a complete loss and said to one of her acquaintances, as she herself admits in her evidence : "I am utterly confused because I am about to lose a dear friend who has guided me with his advice and led me in the paths of life." In her evidence, she indeed declares that she has drawn away from Ibenoff's sect and today she no longer interests herself in it, "because it is possible to find it (that is, the philosophy of life that Ibenoff preached) in any other philosophy without complications", and she sends her children to a State school, of which by coincidence - or perhaps not by a coincidence - the headmistress, as teacher and principal, is a converted Jewess. The story of the petitioner's relations with Ibenoff and his mystic sect was indeed recounted to the French court, and from the fact that the children were eventually placed in the hands of the petitioner, it is plain that that court found nothing objectionable in her and her character; but the Ibenoff affair is not at an end, since the second respondent - the husband - has lodged an appeal against the judgment, and we do not know what will be the result of that appeal. However, more important than that is that there were not before the French court - nor could there be - the facts that came into existence, as stated, after the giving of the judgment; and it is all the more obvious that it did not take into account those considerations with which we are faced. That court regarded the children as it would regard French children, whereas we regard them as we would regard Israel children, whose father seeks to have them regarded as attached to the body of their resurrected nation. The revival of a nation in its land means the revival of every member of the House of Israel, and the benefit of an Israel child requires that he be formed in the likeness of his people, on the soil of his homeland, and that he should grow and be educated a free person among his brothers, the children of his people, without the marks of a bowed head and an inferiority complex so characteristic of the Jew in the Diaspora in his relations with the people among whom he lives, even though he be born there. From that point of view, that is, from the long-term and final point of view, I do not hesitate to express the opinion that the benefit of the children requires a decision that their place is here in Israel, amongst their people, and by the side of their father. We have, however, still not exhausted the problem, for there is another side to the coin which is no less important : that is the short-term aspect of the matter, the prosaic question as to what the children will eat today and what they will wear tomorrow. The petitioner, in her affidavit, speaks of herself as being a secondary school teacher in France, and earning enough for her own and her children's upkeep. Moreover, she says, her parents have supported her in the past, whenever the second respondent has refused to carry out his obligations towards his family. It seems that those parents are good Jews, and at least in their home they carry on the tradition and customs of Israel. The petitioner even mentioned in her evidence that her mother bad at the time objected to her grandchildren, the children of the petitioner and the second respondent, learning Christian religious studies in the school in which they were being educated, and this objection fell on willing ears so far as the petitioner was concerned. Those statements, whether in writing or made orally, were not denied by the second respondent. On the other hand, it appears that the material position of the second respondent is by no means bright. In his affidavit, he speaks of "prospects of getting settled in his profession in Israel" (paragraph 19), of prospects "of entering my children into a suitable educational institution or into Youth Aliya ...with the assistance of one of the social workers ...in Pardess Hanna" (paragraph 13). But all that is, at the very best, no more than a sort of good hope for the future, and it has not got beyond the stage of prospects. There is nothing positive. At the moment, the children are running around in an immigrants' camp, without supervision and without the presence of relatives which are so necessary to children of tender age (the girl is about seven and the boy about four-and-a-half), subject to the kindness of good people and living on a pittance. When the children became ill on the eve of Passover (and it turns out that their illness was not so dangerous), they had to be transferred to hospital, where they could receive the necessary treatment. We do not know what will happen to them tomorrow, or how the father proposes to supply his children with their most vital needs. At the moment, their sustenance is poor. They have no corner of their own, and even the roof above their heads is not permanent. In the Radoyetvitch case (6) also, in which the Court of Session held that, from the legal point of view, the father was entitled to have the child in his possession, the court was not in a hurry to hold in favour of the father, but demanded satisfactory guarantees to ensure that the child would take root in the land to which the father proposed to take her, taking into account her age, her sex and the fact that she had grown up without any knowledge of her country's language. In this respect, the words of the Lord President, Clyde, are enlightening. The learned judge puts it this way :- "We must in the first place, be fully informed of the petitioner's plans for taking delivery of the child and for its safe conduct to Belgrade, ...and we must be satisfied that he is at the present time in a position to carry those plans out. In the second place, we must be fully informed of the arrangements made by him for the proper reception in Belgrade (with a view to education and upbringing) of this girl of eight years of age, who when she first comes under his care) will be unable to communicate her needs or wishes to those around her, unless they have some knowledge of English. We must also be satisfied that he is at the present time in a position to carry out whatever arrangements for these purposes he may have made." If such is the position of a father, claiming his right on the decision of a court which has already decided in the matter, how much more so in the case of a father whose actual right is still in dispute. When I weigh that short-term view in my mind, it seems to me - and not without considerable hesitation - that despite the long-term view, and notwithstanding the father's good intentions, it would not be right to leave the children's fate hanging on a thread. For that reason, and that reason alone, I, too, think that the order should be made absolute. ASSAF J.: I concur with the learned President on the question of this court's jurisdiction to try the matter before us, brought by way of a petition in the nature of habeas corpus, and also on the question of giving recognition to the judgment of the court in France. In relation to the question whether the benefit of the children requires us to alter the decision of the French court, I admit to considerable hesitation and heartsearchings, similar to those which my learned colleague, Cheshin J., has discussed at some length, although I do not feel the same certainty that he has as to the sincerity of the respondent's statements in relation to the upbringing of the children - that he wants to educate them in a traditional Jewish spirit - seeing that they were made after domestic peace had been shattered, and strife had come in its stead. Further, from the evidence of the respondent in court, it is clear that he was not one of those people who maintain the Jewish tradition, and before the divorce case did not object to the method of education that the children received in France. In his affidavit, the respondent states that, in order that domestic peace be restored, he is prepared to forgive his wife her past offences and to live with her a normal family life, but the serious allegations he has made against her throw doubt on whether he feels the same way as he declares. Counsel for the respondent contended that, if the petitioner were to decide to remain in Israel and leave the children, who are still very young and in need of a mother's care, with her, he would have nothing left to argue; but since she does not propose to do so, and since she is still not divorced from her husband according to Jewish law, he relies on the express passage in the Mishnah 1) that "a man may compel all his household to go up with him to the Land of Israel, but none may be compelled to leave it" (Ketuboth, 110b; Shulhan Aruh, Even Ha'Ezer, 75), and accordingly a husband is entitled to demand of his wife that she, too, immigrate to the Land of Israel. But it seems to me that that rule cannot be relied upon in the present instance. It is obvious that the rule was intended for normal cases, where the husband and wife are living together in the customary way and in the manner of Jewish people, and the husband proposes to immigrate to the Land of Israel while the wife is opposed to immigration, on the ground that it involves the giving up of their established home, the ardours of travel and the liky, or out of lack of desire to leave their former place of residence, where her father's household, her relatives and friends live; but in the present case, where the couple are living separately as the result of a serious quarrel that has already lasted a number of years and where a divorce petition was filed more than two years ago, the better view is that a husband cannot demand that his wife leave her father and mother in the land of her birth and the place where she is earning her living and go after him to the Land of Israel, without being certain that she will lead there a happy life. That can only be done by way of request and compromise and not by compelling her to do so and deeming her a rebel for that reason alone, if she refuses. That being so, we return once more to the question of giving effect and recognition to the French court's decision as it stands, according to which the custody of the children has been accorded to the petitioner. After consideration I, too, agree with the opinion of the learned President and my other learned colleagues, that the former situation should be restored by making the order nisi absolute. SMOIRA P. Accordingly, we make the order nisi absolute as against the second respondent. In doing so, we express the hope that the petitioner will not enforce her legal rights to their full extent, but will see her way clear to make some arrangement which will enable the father to see his children from time to time. Order nisi made absolute against the second respondent. Judgement given on April 16, 1950.

In the Supreme Court

Sitting as the High Court of Justice

       HCJ 466/07

HCJ 544/07

HCJ 830/07

HCJ 5030/07

Before:                                            Her Honor, President D. Beinisch

                                                                   His Honor, Deputy President E. Rivlin

                                                                   His Honor, Justice (ret.) E.E. Levy

                                                                   His Honor, Justice A. Grunis

                                                                        Her Honor, Justice M. Naor

                                                                        Her Honor, Justice E. Arbel

                                                                        His Honor, Justice E. Rubinstein

                                                                        His Honor, Justice S. Joubran

                                                                        Her Honor, Justice E. Hayut

                                                                        His Honor, Justice H. Melcer

                                                                        His Honor, Justice N. Hendel

Petitioner in HCJ 466/07:                     M.K. Zehava Gal-On

Petitioner in HCJ 544/07:                     The Association for Civil Rights in Israel

Petitioners in HCJ 830/07:                   1.         Ranin Tawilla

2.       Hattam Tawilla

3.       Assalla Tawilla

          4.         Mahmoud S’bihat

5.       Dima Tawilla

6.       Ulla Tawilla

7.       Ahmed S’bihat

          8.         Mahmad S’bihat

9.    Adalah – Legal Center for Minority Arab Rights in Israel

Petitioner in HJC 5030/07:       Hamoked – Center for the Defense of the Individual, Founded by Dr. Lotta Salzberger (A.R.)

                                                            v.

Respondents in HCJ 466/07     1.        Attorney General

                                                            2.         Minister of the Interior

                                                            3.         Israel Knesset

Respondents in HCJ 544/07     1.        Minister of the Interior

and HCJ 5030/07                     2.        Commander of the Military Forces in Judea and Samaria

                                                  3.        Head of Southern Command

Respondents in HCJ 830/07     1.        Minister of the Interior

                                                  2.        Attorney General

Requesting to Join as                          1.         Fence of Life Movement: For the Construction Respondents                                                                   of a Separation Fence

                                                  2.        Shurat Hadin – Israel Law Center

                                                  3.        Im Tirzu – Building the Zionist Dream

                                                  4.        Movement for Renewed Zionism

Petitions for an Order Nisi

Date of Sessions:                      Nissan 2, 5767                       (March 21, 2007)

                                                  Heshvan 12, 5768      (October 24, 2007)

                                                  Nissan 30, 5768                     (May 5, 2008)

                                                  Adar 19, 5769                       (March 15, 2009)

                                                  Adar 16, 5770                       (March 2, 2010)

Israeli legislation cited:

Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order), 5763-2003

Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty

Foreign legislation cited:

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA Patriot) Act, 2001

Israeli Supreme Court cases cited:

[1]        HCJ 7052/03 Adalah – Legal Center for Minority Arab Rights in Israel v. Minister of the Interior [2006] IsrSC 61(2) 202.

[2]        CA 6821/93 Bank Mizrahi Ltd v. Migdal Cooperative Village [1995] IsrSC 49(4) 221.

[3]        HCJ 6427/02 Movement for the Quality Government in Israel v. Knesset [Nevo – 11.05.2006].

[4]        HCJ 2605/05 Human Rights Division v. Minister of Finance [Nevo – 19.11.2009].

[5]        HCJ 6126/94 Szenes v. Matar [1999] IsrSC 53(3) 817.

[6]        EA 2/84 Nayman v. Chairman of the Central Elections Committee for the Eleventh Knesset [1985] IsrSC 39(2) 225.

[7]        CrA 6669/96 Kahana v. State of Israel [1998] IsrSC 52(1) 535.

[8]        HCJ  8276/05 Adalah, Legal Center for Minority Arab Rights in Israel v. Minister of Defense [2006] IsrSC 62(1) 54.

United States cases cited:

 [9]       Hiabayashi v. United States, 320 U.D. 81 (1943)

[10]      Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S.I.

[11]      Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998).

[12]      Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962).

[13]      Clark v. Suarez Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 386 (2005).

[14]      Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1972).

[15]      Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 542 (1950).

[16]      Zadvydas v. Davis, 522 U.S. 678 (2001).

[17]      Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).

[18]      United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S  144 (1938).

[19]      New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

[20]      Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).

Other foreign cases cited:

[21]      Kiyutin v. Russia, no. 2700/10, ECHR (2011) – 111 (European Court of Human Rights).

[22]      Pfizer Animal Health SA v. Council of the European Union, (Case T-13/99) [2002] ECR II-3305 (European Court of Human Rights).

 [23]     Libman v. Attorney General of Quebec [1997] 3 S.C.R. 569 (Canada).

Judgment (Abstract)

Justice (Ret.) E.E. Levy

The State of Israel … will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex (…)

We appeal - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship (from the Declaration of Independence, 14.5.1948).

The Background and Pleadings

1.    Exactly 58 years after these words were written, on 14 May 2006, this Court expressed its position on the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order) that was enacted by the Knesset in 2003 (hereinafter: the Law). A majority of six of the eleven Justices found the Law to be unconstitutional, ruling that it unlawfully violated the right to equality of Israel’s Arab citizens and the constitutional right to family life (HCJ 7052/03 Adalah Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel v. Minister of Interior [1] (hereinafter: Adalah Case). The Law was not declared void, and the Knesset was given time in which to amend it. That was five years ago. To this day the Law has not been amended as required.

2.    We have before us four petitions to invalidate the Law. It is argued that the Law is unsuited to the democratic paradigm, and does not implement the conclusions of the case law regarding the illegitimacy of the blanket restriction of the aforementioned rights. The Law discriminates between persons on the basis of nationality and ethnic affiliation, and does not reflect a willingness to take the risks that are inherent in the strict maintenance of basic human rights in general, and of the rights of the minority in particular. The respondents, on the other hand, are convinced that the Law comports with the complex reality in which Israeli democracy has been rooted since its very inception, and especially during the past decade –  years of terror that have been tantamount to outright war. In their view, prevention of immigration of enemy subjects into the territory of the State is imperative. The claim is that the security risk cannot be removed by means of individual checking. Instead, the Law which is under scrutiny at present has adopted a system of profiling – a system which is neither arbitrary nor sweeping, but which relies on the characteristics that are shared by terrorists, and which is capable of predicting risks and protecting the lives of Israelis.

Personally, it is unclear whether the line of argument taken by the State in its response – the security line – actually supports its position. Nevertheless, I too will limit this hearing to the parameters of the dispute as delineated in the respondents’ pleadings. Questions not yet ripe for resolution, such as, for example, the question of the composition of the Israeli population or the appropriate nature of an arrangement for immigration to Israel, will be left until their time arrives. I will just say that the character of the Law is reflected in the statements made on behalf of the Government by the Deputy Attorney General in the Knesset Interior Committee: “This provision was accepted by the Government for security reasons and due to an accelerated process of settlement of ten thousands of Palestinians in the State of Israel” (Knesset debate of 14 July 2003, emphasis added).

The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law

3.  The core provision of the Law places limitations on the granting of status in Israel or a permit to remain therein to Palestinians who are inhabitants of the Territories, and to those who come from enemy states.

This blanket prohibition, from which Israeli residents of the Territories were excluded (sec. 1 of the Law), included a number of exceptions: Palestinian males over the age of 35 and Palestinian females of at least 25 years of age; minors up till the age of 18; a person who remains in Israel for purposes of work or medical treatment; and a person who identifies with the State or who has contributed to the advancement of its goals. Most of those applying for family reunification are not included in those categories.

The exceptions were included in the Law before it underwent judicial review on the previous occasion, when it was found to be disproportional. In the wake of the judgment, the Law was amended, but the amendment did not resolve the difficulty and in certain respects even aggravated it. A committee was established to consider exceptional humanitarian cases, and it was authorized to make a recommendation to the Minister of the Interior to permit temporary residence or a stay in Israel for special reasons. The Minister was authorized to establish a maximum yearly quota of such permits. The Humanitarian Committee approved only 33 of the more than 600 applications submitted to it, about one percent of an average of 3,000 applications for permits filed in each of the years that preceded the commencement date of the Law. The amended Law further provided that a person was liable to constitute a security threat to the State of Israel not only when there was information about him or a member of his family presenting a specific risk, but even if activity posing a threat to security “was carried out in his state of residence or in the area in which he lives.”

On Foundational Values and their Constitutional Expression

4.    Constitutional review seeks out the fundamental values upon which the political and social framework of the Israel is premised. All of these come together to form a broad conception which provides a common basis for the members of the nation, strives for coherence in sketching out the national story and records its defining features. This conception provides legitimacy for the existence of the nation, conferring upon it unique significance that distinguishes it from other nations. From this conception is derived – for the future as well – the image of the nation, the various developments of which are but a logical and ongoing sequence of chapters of the foundational narrative on which it is based. This idea was eloquently expressed by Dr. Sharon Weintal:

Looking backwards, the “foundational narrative” presents [the] historical events that preceded the establishment of the nation in the framework of a state, and provides the background and the justification for this development, such that the entire development is perceived to be a natural, obvious and legitimate one. From the current perspective, the “foundational narrative” presents the identity of the nation, as it was shaped in the process of its establishment, an identity that reveals the preferred way of life, common values, aspirations and purposes of the members of the political community, which are intended to guide those charged with the administration of the political framework. Looking to the future, the “foundational narrative” invites future generations to write their own unique chapters in the common story, without detracting from the logical sequence of the story, to change without becoming detached from the sources of the communal tradition (Sharon Weintal, “Eternal Clauses” in the Constitution: the Strict Normative Standard in Establishing a New Constitutional Order (Ph.D. Thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2005).

Identification of the nation’s foundational values is effected on the basis of the core conceptions of its people, its dominant and timeless values, foundational events, documents of special significance, its basic laws, its historical legacy and the consciousness that shapes its image. The foundational values express a broad cross-generational consensus. They reveal themselves from time to time in various scenarios occasioned by the life of the nation. They are written and updated from time to time. Each one of the governmental authorities is a partner, in accordance with its part and role, in their emergence, as well as in influencing their character.

5.    A conception that is concerned with the existence of foundational values raises, almost automatically, a question regarding their constitutional function. Two possibilities come to mind. The first lies in the idea of a material constitution, in the framework of which the foundational values fulfill their function as though they were constitutional norms, even if they are not anchored thus in writing. It is enough to correctly identify those values in order to recognize their normative weight, which is likely to limit the power – even that held by the legislator – to harm them. In this manner the foundational story may serve as an independent source from which constitutional values may spout. The second possibility rejects recognition of the power of any foundational narrative as an independent basis for the creation of constitutional values, but acknowledges the possibility of invoking this narrative in the interpretation of values which are based in constitutional documents. At the same time, the basic values play an important role in demarcating the borders of protection of the constitutional value. According to this approach, the values which the constitution did not seek, either explicitly or by derivation, to include within the scope of its protection will not merit constitutional status even if they are among the constitutive values of the nation.  However, the constitutional values will view the foundational narrative as a significant factor in determining the scope of their application and the determination of the extent of their protection.

These conflicting approaches found expression in CA 6821/93 Bank Mizrahi Ltd v. Migdal Cooperative Village [2] (hereinafter: Bank Mizrahi Case); in the decision concerning the enlistment into the Israeli Defense Forces of ultra-Orthodox Yeshiva students (HCJ 6427/02 Movement for the Quality Government in Israel v. Knesset [3] and especially in the case of the establishment of private prisons in Israel (HCJ 2605/05 Human Rights Division v. Minister of Finance [4]. In my own judgment in the last case, I remarked that “It might have been argued that recognizing the existence of basic values of the legal system as an instrument of quasi-constitutional review is inconsistent with the positive constitutional arrangement, whereby what has not yet been included in the Basic Laws is equivalent to an expression of negation of constitutional protection for those missing values  (ibid). I would now like to further refine these comments, through the prism of the present case.

There is little dispute that the Israeli constitutional project has not yet been completed, and that the Knesset, as the constitutional authority, retains the power to develop it. One may wonder why this development is necessary if one adopts a conception that recognizes the power of “fundamental values of the system” to constitute, as though out of thin air, new constitutional values.  The logical conclusion, which dovetails nicely with our constitutional tradition, is in fact that whereas the foundational values of Israel cannot engender independent protected values, their import lies in the interpretation of constitutional values in light of their purpose, and in the determination of the extent of protection that they warrant.

In these senses, the constitutional mechanism is an immensely important means for safeguarding the existence of the nation’s foundational values. It confers upon the legal system the power to protect the nation against radical changes to its foundational narrative which threaten to disrupt the sequence of building blocks that make up its story. Constitutional discourse protects the members of the minority from changes of this kind that are adopted by majority decision. It may well protect the rights of the majority from themselves. This mechanism helps identify an infringement of those values following a change that rattles the nation. It may sound the alarm. It may try to help repair the infringement. It is able to protect the normative framework from changes that would make such a violation possible.  However its power is not limitless. This point was made by the late Professor Gualtiero Procaccia:

… there is a danger that an ideological regression of a society will be accompanied by an ideological regression of its fundamental legal values. The legal system has no defense against this danger. The legal system in its entirety is a simulacrum of society, and if society changes, then so does the legal system, for good or for bad. Basic [legal] values cannot prevent the deterioration of society – this was not the purpose of their creation. Only the internal powers of society can prevent its deterioration. It is only continuous, uncompromising adherence to the eternal moral values of humankind that can prevent the deterioration of the society. Freedom, equality, and justice are the preliminary fundamental concepts of the legal system and they exist above and beyond it. As long as these moral values reside in people’s hearts, they will prevent the deterioration of the society, but if they do not exist, then it is not within the power of the constitution, the laws and the courts to save them (Gualtiero Procaccia, “Comments on the Changing Contents of Basic Values in Law” 15 Tel Aviv Law Review  (5750) 377, 382).

The Israeli Narrative – “Jewish and Democratic State”

6.    A distilled expression of the constitutive narrative of Israel is provided by the phrase “Jewish and democratic state”, which constitutes the keystone of our constitutional law.  The Declaration of Independence, from which I quoted at the beginning of my opinion, provides the outline for the character of the foundational infrastructure of the Israeli nation. The late Justice Haim Herman Cohn wrote of this declaration that it had been “raised to the level of the ‘manifesto’ of the state, in other words, a value unsurpassed by any other, values upon which the founding fathers promised to base the state” (Haim Cohn, “The Values of a Jewish and Democratic State”, Selected Writings (2001) 45, 51-52. It was not by chance that two Basic Laws, which together constitute Israel’s written Bill of Rights, provide as follows:

In the combination “Jewish and democratic state” lies the key to Israel’s self- determination. It is central to its definition, even for the outside observer. It encapsulates the reason for the establishment of the state, and its special character. It is the source of its justified demand for international recognition. It underlies the feeling of Israelis that this is a state that ought to exist, and that being a citizen of this state is worthwhile. It provides the basis for the conclusion that this can be done, despite significant internal tensions.

Filling a fundamental principle with real content is no easy task. Without exhausting the subject I would say that the basis of the foundation of a state is the need to ensure the safety of its citizens. Many a state has been established as a result of the desire of a national group that founded it to realize its right to self-determination. The concept Jewish relates in a concrete sense to the right of the Jewish people to self-determination, as well as to its ability to defend itself from the outside. The basic concepts of Zionism, history, culture, Jewish tradition, and the Hebrew language, as well as a Jewish majority of the population of the state, are some of the components of the “Jewish” part (of the combination). As a democratic framework, the state is committed to a substantive conception of freedom and of equality, to upholding the basic rights of the individual, including those of minority groups, and to open and accessible mechanisms for dialogue and decision-making.

Each of the terms “state”, “Jewish” and “democratic” is the receptacle of an entire complex of constituent values. Occasionally they contradict and compete with each other. The tasks of harmonizing them into a single coherent story occasionally appears as an attempt to square a triangle, the points of which are these three concepts. However, this is inevitable.  The conflicts that arise, like the attempts to resolve them, are an integral part of the Israeli story. Even though each of these values per se can be described as integral, complete and absolute, this is not necessarily true with respect to the extent to which each is protected. This extremely complex formula, into which the values of the Jewish and democratic state are compacted, cannot allow any one of the values involved to occupy the entire space or to act as though it existed in a vacuum. Absolute protection for any one of the values threatens to destroy the entire equation. A suitable and appropriate balance increases the prospects for its success. This element of balance also serves as a constitutive value in our system.  The story of the Jewish and democratic state is a delicate and complex story of balancing between its different components, and just as it cannot tolerate the absolute foregoing of any of these components, neither can it agree to a sweeping and absolute dominance of any one of them. As such, while there may be situations in which the extremities of aspects of a central value in our legal system may find themselves extending beyond the foundational Israeli tapestry, the essence of that value, the nucleus around which its most salient elements revolve, cannot be missing from our constituent story. Harm done to this core cannot but disrupt the delicate balance upon which the Israeli equation is based. Detracting from elements located in this nucleus of the foundational value cannot coexist with the fundamentals of our system. Abandonment of the fundamental, classical elements cannot be squared with the notion of a Jewish and democratic state.

7.    The foundational values may assume different forms and appear in various ways. Jurisprudence has developed various mechanisms for choosing between competing values, according to their nature and the nature of the conflict between them. In balancing between a foundational value in the form of an important public interest and a constitutional right of the individual, the limitation clause of the Basic Laws comes into play. Competition between these values is settled in light of the principle that permits the breach of a right only for the purpose of realizing an important public principle, provided that the extent of the violation does not exceed that which is required. Deciding between competing values, which is contrary to the notion of the proper purpose and proportionality, is not consistent with the foundational  narrative. The constitutional mechanism must fix this.

Constitutional Review

8.    In its attempts to determine whether a violation of a protected constitutional norm is appropriate, the constitutional mechanism of the limitation clause establishes a hierarchy in the form of a funnel: “by a law, befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required.” This graduated structure is comprised of normative filters, which become progressively finer and denser. The test moves from the difficult to the easier. The more blatant the deviation from the constitutional order, the sooner will the norm in question be caught in the constitutional filter. Violations that involve more complex questions of constitutionality will need to continue further along the path of the limitation clause. The advantage of this structure is found in the signal it emits, both to the legislator and to the court, concerning the depth of the violation of the constitutional order, in the indication it provides with respect to the proper way of dealing with this violation. The establishment of the “geographical location” of the violation affords the legislator a better understanding of the nature of the change that it must make to the law in order to render it constitutional. This structure helps the court to select the proper relief, for the graver the violation of the normative order, the more immediate and definitive will be the judicial relief for the protection of the right that was violated.

A law “befitting the values of the State of Israel”

9.  A law that is inconsistent with the Israeli narrative cannot stand. Its violation of our first principles is severe, and it is like an alien element whose existence is intolerable. The impact of the violation is so severe that the constitutional order is designed to block it at a relatively early stage. Case law generally relates to the requirement regarding the values of the state as a test of purpose at a high level of abstraction, the question being whether the law promotes, in terms of its objective, the fundamental values of Israel as these are derived from the need to protect the constitutional right. Our concern here is with the objective in the broad sense, namely, with all of the components that grant the law its unique significance. These include not only the purpose of the law but also the means it adopts and its outcomes.

A law “enacted for a proper purpose”

10.  The criterion of the proper purpose addresses the specific objective of the law.  It examines the law’s combined purpose – that which emerges against the backdrop of the totality of circumstances, the normative environment and the time in which the constitutional review is conducted, and that which expresses the “historical” intention of the legislator. In this context the law must overcome three hurdles in order for its concrete purpose to be regarded as befitting: [a] It must be intended for the achievement of social objectives, i.e., it must serve a concrete public interest. This requirement may be referred to as the test of interest;  [b] The interest must be regarded as sufficiently important to justify the violation of a protected right, having regard to the essence of the right and the severity of the violation. This can be referred to as the test of necessity. In terms of its development in our case law, and unlike other systems of law, this test has a relatively open texture, involving value-based decisions; [c] The law must befit a democratic regime that protects human rights. This is the test of sensitivity to the right.

11. The test of sensitivity to the right has yet to be sufficiently expounded in our case law, and the main thing that has been said of it is that “[a] purpose is deemed proper if it constitutes a social goal in a society sensitive to human rights” (HCJ 6126/94 Szenes v. Matar [5]). According to this conception a law that seeks to further a security interest, i.e., that at base seeks to protect a person’s right to life, is a law that is sensitive to human rights, and this is sufficient for purposes of determining that it is for a proper purpose. However, I am hard put to think of a law that seeks to promote a viable public interest which does not have some import for any of the human rights. Not only is it difficult to assume that had there been such a law, the legislature would have refrained from enacting it, but even had it been enacted, it would not have overcome the hurdle of befitting the values of a Jewish and democratic state. One may therefore wonder as to the utility of placing the hurdle of sensitivity to human rights at this stage of the constitutional examination, in that it is difficult to conceive of any law that would not overcome that hurdle. Therefore, the requirement of a befitting purpose must be understood to mean that a law cannot be befitting if it fails to demonstrate, according to its purpose, sensitivity to the right that is actually violated, as evinced in the circumstances under examination. As such, if in the previous sub-­test – the test of necessity – the appropriateness of the concrete purpose is tested from the perspective of the public interest, this will now be supplemented by the perspective of the right that was violated. In order to be regarded as befitting in terms of its purpose, the law causing the violation must demonstrate that it does not seek to deliver a mortal blow to protected human rights to such an extent that it becomes indifferent to the importance and significance of the violated right. A law that is totally indifferent to the importance of the violated basic rights is a law with an improper purpose. It cannot fit into the framework of a social order in which rights discourse is of the essence. In order to meet the test of sensitivity to the right,­ it must be shown that the law leaves, insofar as possible, real space for the existence of the right – even if only of its nucleus – whether broader or narrow, whether now or in the future, with various limitations, and provided that a reading of the law leads to the conclusion that it does not deny this right. This point was addressed by Dr. Yaacov Ben-Shemesh:

A democratic state that is sensitive to human rights is not free to promote the realization of public objectives in an absolute manner, regardless of their cost, and regardless of the violation of human rights that may be involved. Total objectives lead to totalitarian practices. It is doubtful whether a law intended to realize its objective to the maximum degree is a law intended for a proper purpose even if its  purpose, per se, is a proper purpose. It is conceivable that such a law will not overcome the hurdle of propriety of purpose not because the purpose is not proper but because it seeks to achieve it in a manner that is not proper, having regard to the importance of human rights (Ben Shemesh, supra, p. 59)

“An extent no greater than is required”

12.  We have derived three tests of proportionality from the wisdom and experience of others (Moshe Cohen-Eliya & Iddo Porat, “American Balancing and German Proportionality: The Historical Origins”, 8 Int. J. of Con. L. 263 (2010); R. Oakes [1986] S.C.R 103; L. 263 (2010). Proportionality addresses the means that the law seeks to invoke. This means may totally fail to realize the purpose of the law, in which case its violation of the right is in vain (rational relationship test), or it may realize the purpose but cause damage that was avoidable. The importance of this latter dimension, which attempts to identify the means which is the least intrusive, emerges specifically with the adoption of the notion that the proper purpose of the law must leave some space for the violated right. Once the notion of totality in realizing the public interest is rejected, the path is clear for an examination of whether the means adopted was the only one possible. Finally, it is conceivable that the norm under examination may indeed have realized the proper purpose effectively, but at the same time it harmed other principles and values, such that its damage exceeds its benefit (“narrow” proportionality test).

13.  This last test must be distinguished from the requirement that the law befit the values of a Jewish and democratic state. The test of appropriateness addresses first principles, and the value judgments it involves will reflect a relatively wide consensus. In addition, the three components set boundaries for its implementation. The final test of proportionality, which is paradoxically referred to as “narrow” even though it is quite broad, and even though  it is possible to structure the judicial discretion required in applying it, involves value judgments that may be controversial and are more dependent upon the world view of the observer.  In my view one must be careful to avoid transforming the “narrow” test of proportionality into a dominant one, to the extent of exclusivity, eclipsing the other components of the constitutional examination. The earlier it is possible to conduct this examination, in a non-contrived manner, the better.             

Today there is broad recognition of the similarity between the “narrow” test of proportionality and the ground of “reasonability” which for many years was dominant in our administrative law. The ground of reasonability provided a more powerful demonstration of the doctrinal and practical difficulties inherent in reliance on judicial discretion, in demarcating its borders and in identifying the proper relationship between it and the administrative act. These difficulties become more acute, a fortiori, when our concern is with review of legislative action, and they have been experienced by many of the legal systems that are confronted with defining the position of the various branches of government, particularly the relationship between an elected legislative branch, which operates by virtue of the majoritarian principle, and the judiciary. The transition from reasonability to proportionality is no magic potion. It does not eliminate the dispute between different views regarding the role of the court in a democratic society. As I already mentioned, certain aspects of proportionality may necessitate value judgments which are liable to further exacerbate this dispute. However, proportionality has advantages, the most important of which is that it involves detailed and structured tests, some of them objective, which provide a basis for in-depth argumentation.

The Citizenship Law and the Values of a Jewish and Democratic State

14.  The State of Israel was born into a security situation which was infinitely more difficult than the reality that it has confronted in recent years. Real existential threat hung over its head in the first decades of its existence. Many were consumed by doubt as to whether it was capable of meeting the challenges lain on its doorstep. An insistent question mark floated at times above the notion that it was possible to establish and successfully maintain a true democratic entity in the heart of a hostile region from which democratic ways of thinking were absent. Leaders in the Arab community in Israel as well as outside of it refused to accept the existence of a sovereign Jewish state in any part of the territory of the Land. They embarked on a war to destroy it when it was still in its infancy. After a short while, many of members of that community, as if all at once, became citizens of the state that was established. In this complicated reality, the young State inscribed on its flag the principle, which found expression in the Declaration of Independence, that even when the security situation was dire, and even though the basis for the State was the rebirth of the Jewish people in its homeland, all its citizens would enjoy equality of social and political rights irrespective of their religion, their ethnic origin or the community to which they belong. The historical experience of the Jewish people over the centuries, and one of the foundations in the name of which the State of Israel sought recognition amongst the nations of the world, acted to instill in the emerging image of the State this core component of equality – absence of discrimination due to group affiliation. The views diverge on the extent and the manner in which this would be applied. Even today, there are many allegations – not entirely baseless – of discrimination against and oppression of Arabs in Israel. But efforts were and still are being made, particularly in recent decades, to change the situation. The chapter of equality between Jews and those who are not Jewish has grown broader and it ought to be widened even further, until it is woven with silken thread into the entire fabric of the Israeli story, as an indisputable fact.

The difficult, continuous struggle for the peaceful existence of the Jewish people, too, adds to and comprises the Israeli foundational narrative. We are very far indeed from achieving rest and respite. Even if, albeit for a very short time in historical terms, the specter of the existential threat has been removed from above us, it has been replaced quickly by murderous terror. It has been decreed that we must deal with this. The efforts of our security forces make this possible. The courageous spirit and the determination of the Jewish people are no less important components. But our strength lies also in our existence as a democratic state, which aspires to allow individuals and communities to fulfill themselves, to express what is in their hearts, to move freely from one place to another, to think independently, to respect one another, to give a person the feeling that he is equal to the next person, to allow him to establish a home and a family of his choosing, and all this – without harming others.

15.  The realization of these elements under a single roof is not an easy task. It requires mutual concessions. It requires the taking of risks. It is not amenable to a blanket application. And the principle is as if woven into these things, that each person is an individual, and every man and women – even if he or she belongs to a particular social community – has a separate, individual existence. This is the basis of the idea that every person is responsible for his actions.

16.  The provisions of the Citizenship Law contradict all the above. They accord decisive weight to the element of security, while inflicting a mortal blow on basic rights of the first order. They create a reality, the clear outcome of which is constriction of the rights of Israelis merely because they are Arabs. They grant legitimacy to a notion that is alien to our basic conceptions – oppression of minorities only because they are minorities. By basing themselves on an arrangement of categorical classification, which contains everything except for an individual investigation of the danger presented by a person, they blur the image of the individual as an entire world in himself. They open the door to additional legislative acts which have no place in a democratic conception. They threaten to bring us a step closer to the conception that “preserves the outer skin of democracy, without leaving any traces of the contents” (Menachem Hofnung, Israel – Security Needs vs. the Rule of Law – 1948-1991 (1991) 105). The continued existence of the Law casts a dark shadow over the chances for Israeli democracy to meet the challenges which it faced till now. Whoever thinks that over time, even the majority, by virtue of whose decision this Law came into being, can withstand the damage it does, is wrong. I fear that it will threaten to overtake every Israeli, whoever he be, since it harbors the power to destabilize the foundation upon which we are all standing, shoulder to shoulder. At the end of the day this harm, distant and slow-approaching though it be, state-sponsored as it appears, is no less damaging than the acts of terror against which we are trying to protect ourselves.

17.  All this is wrought by the Citizenship Law at a time when it makes no real contribution to the Jewish aspect of Israel. On the contrary, because this Law has the potential to weaken the democratic foundations of the State, it also detracts from its ability to serve as the furnace in which the Jewish people is forged. This insight is particularly pertinent in view of the insistence of the State on its contention that the purpose of this Law is purely security-related, and nothing else. As declared, of the three arms of the foundational Israeli triangle, the Law purports to assist only in the realization of that relating to “state”, i.e., to the framework of the state that promotes the security of its citizens. It seems to me that this purpose can and should be achieved at a lower cost. Only individual arrangements, which avoid labelling a person according to his ethnic origin, affiliation to an age group, gender, or area of residence – arrangements that are based on acknowledgement of his own actions, evince a willingness to take the risk that is involved in recognition of human rights, and which draws upon our historical experience and our tradition as a people and as a state.

The Detailed Purpose

18.  The Citizenship Law serves a concrete public interest, the importance of which cannot be overstated. Protection of the security of the residents of Israel in view of terrorist threats justifies a certain erosion of the protection of the right to equality. It justifies a constriction of the protection of the right to family life. But the failure of the Law to propose a means of detailed examination – in view of the stance of the security forces that they are not able to achieve the same optimal degree of security to which the Law aspires in its present formulation – is such a gross violation of these rights, to the extent that it is no longer possible to say that the Law is sensitive to human rights. The Law does, indeed, prescribe exceptions to the limitation on acquiring a status in Israel. It expresses its position that in certain circumstances, Israelis can become reunited with their Palestinian spouses, as well as with their offspring. But these circumstances are so sparse, and their application so limited, that in practice they leave no room for the main principles of the specified rights. A comprehensive examination is not necessary in order to establish that the majority of Arab-Israeli partners wish to marry men and women belonging to the “prohibited age” under the Citizenship Law. This is the customary age of marriage, and this is attested to by the assessment of the respondents that some two-thirds of those who seek status by virtue of family reunification (an annual average of approx. 2000) are not included in the exceptions specified in the Law. Particularly noticeable are the weakness of the humanitarian exception and the idea, surprising in itself, of setting quotas for permits issued by virtue of it (sec. 13A1(6) of the Law).

Most of the applications for marriage or for reunification with children do not succeed in overcoming the sweeping restriction in the Law. But even those which fall within the bounds of one of the exceptions are not assured a detailed examination. They pass on to the next station – to a test under sec. 3D of the Law; this section, too, entrenches a blanket arrangement. Applications which made it over the various hurdles placed by the Law and have reached this stage are liable to find themselves exposed to a blanket disqualification, which has absolutely nothing to do with detailed information about the individual. This may happen, for example, only because the Palestinian partner resides in an area in which activity is taking place that is liable to endanger the security of the State of Israel or its citizens. Is there no room for allowing him, this foreign partner – and even if the State met its preliminary burden of showing that he presents a security risk – to prove on his part that despite the involvement in terror of his relatives or his neighbors in the area in which he resides, he himself has nothing to do with activity of this type? Examination of a person’s match to a profile of risk of one sort or another, I would stress,  is not a  detailed examination. And not only do two-thirds of the cases of family reunification not cross the threshold of the Law, but the vast majority of the cases that succeeded in accessing the foyer and crossing it successfully gained for their subjects only a permit to remain in Israel, which does not grant the rights enjoyed by Israelis. After all the exceptions, the Law implements an extremely sweeping arrangement, which does not take into account the rights of a sizeable majority of the Israeli partners, most of whom are Arab-Israeli citizens. In this can be seen the severe erosion of the right to family life. In this can be seen the mortal blow to the heart of the right to equality – the prevention of discrimination against a background of group affiliation.

A possible salve might have been found had the temporary order been of limited duration. A true and sincere time limitation may blunt the effect even of a blanket arrangement, and it is possible that this would provide the necessary minimal living space for the violated rights. But what can I do – once again I cannot escape the conclusion that the Citizenship Law is in no way temporary; rather, it was intended to be with us for many years, despite its promising title: “Temporary Order”.

On temporary orders:-

There is no greater eternity

Than a door sign stating: Closed for the day.

Forever it shall be closed.

No one will open. No one will emerge.

Not a cloud in the sky.

Embrace the verdict. Sign.

They will not open. Go home. Dream.

(Yehuda  Amichai, Poems 1948-1962, at p. 352 (2002))

19.  Prior to the Knesset passing the Law in the summer of 2003, the Government presented its clear position that the lifetime of the Law would be limited. But since then, the force of the Citizenship Law has been extended thirteen times – twice by the Knesset and another eleven times in governmental decisions that were approved by the Knesset. Even were we to ignore the question which is complex in itself – whether it is appropriate that the force of laws of the Knesset, and particularly a law which has such a significant impact, is extended by a governmental order which the legislature approves in a rapid process, a single vote, which may well not be based on a full picture of the information – I am afraid that again, we cannot be satisfied with the title “Temporary Order”. What was intended to be a temporary order has proved to be, unfortunately, an “Order Enduring Many Years”. Once it became clear that not only from the point of view of its contents but also from the perspective of the duration of its application, the Citizenship Law leaves inadequate room for the violated rights, it could no longer be said to be sensitive to human rights. It cannot be said of its purpose, even its concrete purpose, that it is proper.

20.  This lack of sensitivity to the violated rights becomes more acute in view of the conclusion that the Law has additional purposes, apart from that of security. It permits the entry of Palestinian workers into Israel, and allows for the granting of status to Palestinians who have helped Israel. I find it difficult to accept the State’s argument that the risk presented by temporary Palestinian workers – tens of thousands per year – is less than and substantially different from that presented by inhabitants of the Territories who acquired citizenship in Israel. The principle-based argument is not at all convincing, in my opinion, for access to Israel is possible for “day-trippers” too, just like workers. There is no escaping the conclusion that whenever the State has an interest in the presence of workers who fulfil employment requirements that the economy has trouble supplying, the security consideration is laid aside for the moment, or at least loses its status as a main consideration. This is not only liable to render the security purpose suspicious to some, but in my view, it poses an additional question mark as to the degree of seriousness with which the State relates to the violation of the protected rights of its Arab citizens.

Proportionality

Even an assumption that the Law is not inconsistent with the values of the Jewish and democratic state, and that its particular purpose is proper, will not help it to pass the constitutional test at its final station, that of proportionality. First, I believe that intensifying the violation of equality between Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel will not be of benefit even from the security point of view. The outcome is likely to be a reduction of the security risk from one aspect, but its increase in another aspect, for the feelings of frustration and oppression are liable to be directed into negative channels.

If this leads to the conclusion that the Law lacks a rational connection between its purpose and the means of achieving it, then this conclusion is even more valid from an additional perspective. Even if I assume that the Law seeks, according to its purpose, to leave adequate room for the violated rights, the sweeping means it prescribes are inconsistent with this purpose. The illegitimate blanket application of the Law finds expression in the assessment of the tools it adopted. Arrangements that are not sensitive, in a specific manner, to every application that is submitted to the security forces are not consistent with the intention to recognize the central place of the right to family life and the right to equality. Even on the assumption, which as stated is not at all obvious, that a law under which decisions are made according to sketches of profiles will be more effective in increasing security, there is a serious question mark about its ability to also promote the other part of “proper purpose”, which is showing sensitivity to human rights.

22.  But even if the Law managed to reach the threshold of the second test, that which seeks the means that is less intrusive, blocking it with this fine filter would be justified. At the point of departure, which claims that the Law is not directed at the achievement of absolute security, but it does what it can to limit the security risk presented by inhabitants of the Territories and hostile states, there is no escaping the conclusion that there exists a means which is less intrusive, i.e., the detailed check, the scope and a character of which will be determined in consultation with the experts on the matter, including the security elements, in advance, throughout the process, and if necessary, even thereafter.

23.  The words of the respondents best show that individual security checks are very effective. According to their data, of more than 600 applications that were lodged since September 2005 by virtue of one of the exceptions provided by the Law, and that were rejected for the reason that the applicant had been found to be connected to terrorist activity, more than 270 were from people who had already begun the process of acquiring status or acquiring a temporary permit to remain in Israel and had received temporary Israeli documentation; follow-up checks that had been made revealed that negative security information existed about them. In 66 other cases, this was the situation regarding those who received a permit to remain in Israel not by virtue of family reunification but for other reasons. It seems to me that  even disregarding the fact that these were in any case not disqualified on the basis of the risk profiles in the Law, these statistics indicate the efficacy of the accompanying security check.

24.  Not infrequently, in dealing with the second test of proportionality, the argument arises about the financial cost of the means that have been selected, and about the economic burden that these alternative means are likely to impose on the State. A significant difference in cost is liable to exclude the alternative means from the bounds of the means whose adoption is possible. In my view, it cannot be denied that cost is significant, but this significance decreases as the extent of the violation increases, and particularly when the violation is not in the category of damage to property, nor one that can be remedied by means of financial compensation. The violation of the rights that are the subject of these petitions, the protection of which justifies the investment of public resources, even in substantial amounts, is of this type. Secondly, my mind was put at rest in this matter, too, by the explicit words of counsel for the respondents, whereby the problem did not lie in the cost of the individual checks, but in the “inherent difficulty”, as she said, of adopting these detailed checks, whatever their cost may be.

Ultimately, my opinion is that the Citizenship Law does not overcome the hurdle of the constitutional mechanism; this inevitably calls for granting the appropriate judicial relief. With this I will conclude my words.

The Constitutional Relief

25.  Voidness is a major remedy for a misdeed in relation to the acts of a governmental authority. Its purpose is two-fold: repair of the wrong that is caused to the individual as a result of the act of the authorized body and restoring the authority to the path of constitutionality. In the course of the years, the discourse has moved from an absolute model of voidness, which means voiding the governmental act immediately and in full, to a classification of the relief according to the circumstances, including in light of the nature of the process and the identity of the parties to it. The main thrust of the doctrine of relative voidness is its granting of judicial discretion as to the breadth and depth of the voidness. Deferred voidness means that the court has the power to withhold its constitutional approval from the governmental action, but it postpones the date on which this receives practical expression. The two doctrines are liable to be invoked in examining the constitutionality of a Knesset law.  Judicial discretion in selecting the relief resorts to a complex system of balances and various considerations. An appropriate solution for one set of circumstances may prove to be unsatisfactory for another. Sometimes, declaring immediate voidness of a statutory norm will be an appropriate response to the violation it involves, particularly when this is serious and more marked. On the other hand, there are situations in which despite recognition of the flaw, the benefit of deferring the voidness will exceed the harm caused by the constitutional violation.

Deferral has advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, it allows the governmental authority the necessary time to rethink and to make the preparations for fixing the existing arrangement. The advantage of this is that it does not exhaust the legal process before the fate of the governmental action is decided, in a way that is certain to lead – even if only after some time – to the removal of the flaw. It allows the governmental authority time for consideration and for the necessary public and political discourse – vital elements in the legislative and administrative enterprise. The advantage lies also in the fact that it reduces the risk of a normative lacuna which is liable to accompany immediate voidness. On the other hand, it has two weaknesses. First, it extends that lifetime of an illegitimate norm; and second, in detracting from the power of the authority under review it is liable to turn the opponents of judicial review against the courts, and in a case in which no alternative arrangement has been proposed, when the time arrives for the voidness to take effect, it may even erode the status of the courts of law.

26.  But the main virtue of deferred voidness is its contribution to constitutional dialogue, that is, to the understanding that protection of the values embodied in the constitution is an endeavor that is common to the three branches of government. This understanding does not undermine the democratic fundamental principles of the separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, it is concerned with furthering the dialogue between the branches of government and the mutual sensitivity between them. It acknowledges that the constitutional enterprise is not the exclusive domain of one authority. The responsibility for it – which is heavy indeed – does not fall upon the shoulders of the court alone, nor on those of the Knesset nor on those of the government only. Protection of constitutional basic values – one of the most important elements of the democratic system – is effected by the three branches together. It is best, therefore, that engagement with constitutional questions should be the outcome of an honest, constant and continuous dialogue between the authorities This will likely be beneficial for the conduct of government in general. It may well be good for human rights. It is able to dispel antagonism, which is frequently connected to the notion of a right and protection of this right. It has the ability to aid in the development of additional constitutional rights. It allows basic rights to share the spotlight with other values, the promotion of which is important to the public. On the positive characteristic of constitutional dialogue, Hogg and Bushell wrote as follows in their well-known article:

[T]he judicial decision causes a public debate in which Charter values play a more prominent role than they would if there had been no judicial decision. The legislative body is in a position to devise a response that is properly respectful of the Charter values that have been identified by the Court, but which accomplishes the social or economic objectives that the judicial decision has impeded… The legislative body would have been forced to give greater weight to the Charter values identified by the Court in devising the means of carrying out the objectives, or the legislative body might have been forced to modify its objectives to some extent to accommodate the Court’s concerns. These are constraints on the democratic process, no doubt, but the final decision is the democratic one… Judicial review is not “a veto over the politics of the nation,” but rather the beginning of a dialogue as to how best to reconcile the individualistic values of the Charter with the accomplishment of social and economic policies for the benefit of the community as a whole (P.W. Hogg and A.A. Bushell, “The Charter Dialogue between Courts and Legislatures — Or Perhaps the Charter of Rights isn’t such a Bad Thing After All”, 35 Osgoode Hall L. J. 75, 79; 80; 105 (1997)).

But constitutional dialogue cannot be fruitless. It cannot serve as a cover for an ongoing violation of human rights It cannot camouflage an approach that does not acknowledge the importance of protecting these rights. It cannot provide a platform on which to make light of their gravity. It cannot obviate the process of judicial review. In the absence of constitutional dialogue, the Law in question cannot be allowed to remain in place until the Knesset deigns to amend it.

Decision and Conclusion

27.  The loss of the democratic image of the State of Israel and the abandonment of basic concepts that it has held from its inception is something the Israeli public cannot accept. Our legal system cannot reconcile itself to this. The Citizenship Law threatens to create more than a crack in the wall, the strength of which has held till now, and which is called “a Jewish and democratic state”. The violation caused by the Law is serious. Its harms resounds. Its enactment is a foundational even in the democratic history of Israel. Even if there are those who would see this as a watershed in the relationship between the branches of government, the court can no longer observe this even from the sidelines. There is no option but to exercise our judicial authority. The severity of the violation and the concern about its additional ramifications make this necessary.

This does not detract from recognition of the gravity of the terror that has struck in our midst. The scenes of the attacks which we have experienced and their horrible results constantly pierce our hearts. Comfort over the worlds that have been destroyed in an instant – young boys and girls, parents, the elderly, entire families with all their children, soldiers, men and women – is hard to find. Outright war must be declared on the murderers, those who send them out, those to do their bidding – even amongst Israeli Arabs. It is the duty of the State to protect its residents, insofar as possible within the framework of the democratic regime. Its role is to aspire to ensure personal security. In times of security threats, the State is permitted to act differently than in times of peace and quiet. Nevertheless, we must not cross lines that must not be crossed. This has happened, even in foreign fields (and see: Hiabayashi v. United States [9]). This is not the way of the Israeli legislator. “Israel is the only state in the twentieth century that has succeeded in maintaining the existence of democratic institutions and a reasonable level of human rights for its citizens, despite the constant external threat” (Hofnung, ibid., at p. 346). I am sure that just as the Knesset succeeded, over the years, in dealing with complex, difficult challenges, this time too it will find a way to fix that which requires fixing.

28.  Based on this position, I propose to my colleagues that we issue an absolute order stating that the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order) 5763-2003, is void on grounds of unconstitutionality. The voidness of the Law will come into effect nine months from today.

Justice S. Joubran

I concur in the ruling of my colleague Justice E.E. Levy according to which the Law should be struck down, even in its present formulation. However, my reasoning is different.

In HCJ 7052/03 Adalah – Legal Center for Minority Arab Rights in Israel v. Minister of the Interior [1] (hereinafter: Adalah Case), I ruled that the right to establish family life is a constitutional right which is protected in its entirety by Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. I also ruled that the harm caused to this right by the arrangement specified in the Law touched upon the very essence of a person as a free citizen.

The Law and the amendment thereto prevent (almost totally) the possibility of realizing the right to family life with a partner who is an inhabitant or a citizen of the Area. This limitation is relevant only to the group comprised of Arab citizens of the State – it is they who in practice marry spouses from the Area. Accordingly, the provisions of this Law must be viewed as substantially violating the constitutional right to equality.

I will add that the amendment to the Law includes both inhabitants of the Area and inhabitants of states listed in Addendum B, including Syria, Lebanon and Iran. In my view, this generalization is not justified. First, the political situation that exists between Israel and the Palestinian Authority is different from that existing between Israel and the states appearing in the second addendum. Secondly, it is unjustified in view of the social, cultural and special historical situation between the Arab citizens  of the State of Israel and the inhabitants of the Area.

3.  The respondents argue that the provisions do not violate the right to equality, and that they are based on a permitted distinction due to the security threat that is posed by partners from the states specified in the Law. However, the total negation in the Law of the possibility of acquiring a status for a partner who is an inhabitant of the Area, with no indication of danger posed by him, attests in my view to a distinction which is not permitted, one which has ramifications for a defined, specific population group (Arab citizens) and which is not based upon concrete characteristics of those who are seeking the status (inhabitants of the Area).

The State supports its argument with data according to which, of the total number of inhabitants of the Area who acquired status in Israel by virtue of family reunification, several dozen have been involved in terrorist activity. It contends that there is a statistical potential risk posed by every one of the members of the group which justifies the distinction. In my view, attribution to an individual in a group of the negative characteristics that are attributed to the group, in the absence of any specific indication in respect of that particular individual, is illegitimate, and it violates the autonomy of the individual and his dignity. It would have been appropriate for the State to act to obtain maximum information, in order to create a distinction between the different persons seeking status and the degree of risk that they pose.

4.    This, of course, does not decrease the importance of the security need which is behind the enactment of the Law. Every state is obligated to preserve its existence and to protect the security of its citizens. However, it must be recalled that the state exists not only for the purpose of preserving the physical existence of its citizens, but also in order to allow them to realize their humanity and their liberty, through the creation of the rule of law.

5.    The violations of protected constitutional rights perpetrated by the Law are extremely severe, but that is not enough to strike it down. In accordance with the limitation clause in the Basic Laws, a law may violate constitutional rights, since they are not protected in their entirety. My colleague Justice E.E. Levy rules that the Law already fails to meet the second criterion of the limitation clause (the criterion of befitting the values of the State). In my view, my colleague’s approach extends the scope of judicial review within the parameters of the criterion of “befitting the values of the States of Israel” in the limitation clause; this is at a time when the constitutional tools of review – central to which is proportionality – that were broadly developed in international and Israeli law are more suited to the constitutional examination of this Law, in accordance with what my colleague President Barak wrote in the Adalah Case. In my view, in the area of judicial review of the constitutionality of a law, we must proceed cautiously and with restraint. As long as the second criterion of the limitation clause has not been sufficiently developed, it should continue to be invoked as a threshold criterion at a high level of abstraction, and its development should be left pending for the future.

Moreover, recourse to the criterion  of “befitting the values of the State” for the purpose of voiding this Law departs from our analysis in the Adalah Case. Despite the amendments to the Law as described, and the worsening violations, I am not convinced that there is justification for departing from President Barak’s analysis, with which I concurred (see the Adalah Case, p. 485). Care must be taken that similar cases received similar legal treatment, and even if in this case it seems, prima facie, that the path trodden by my colleague Justice E.E. Levy is correct and just, we must maintain strict consistency, unless there is significant reason to deviate from our path.

6.    In the Adalah Case it was ruled that the Law was designed for a proper purpose (pp. 318, 340). On this matter, I will once again stress that an examination of the Law and the arrangements it establishes, even in its present formulation, engenders the concern that security is not the only consideration behind the enactment of the Law, and it raises questions about the policy that the Law seeks to realize. It appears that demographic policy also figures amongst the considerations underlying the Law (see the Adalah Case, pp. 486-487). At the same time, having concurred in President Barak’s ruling in our previous judgment, whereby even the security consideration does not justify such a severe violation of family life and of the right to equality, I see no need to discuss this issue in the present petition as well.

7.    In light of this assumption, let us proceed to the criteria of proportionality. Regarding the first sub-criterion – the rational connection between the means and the end – in my opinion it should be ruled that there is a rational connection between the security purpose of the Law and the means that it prescribes. In the framework of the criterion of the rational connection, a clear question must be asked: do the means that were selected further the aims of the Law? Even if the purpose of the Law is only partially realized, the rational connection exists.

In accordance with the interpretation accorded to this criterion, one is hard-put say that the Citizenship Law fails to meet it. The very fact that the Law is of help in realizing the purpose, i.e., reduction of the security risk (as my colleague Justice E.E. Levy also determines in para. 36 of his opinion) shows that it establishes a rational connection between the end and the means. Other considerations should not be introduced into this criterion – ones which should find expression in the balance in the framework of the third sub-criterion of proportionality.

8.    The criterion of the “least intrusive means” has been interpreted in the case law as an instruction to examine whether the legislator selected, from amongst those means that realize the proper purpose of the law causing the harm with the same degree of intensity, the means that entail the least violation. The only difference there should be if we were to exchange the harmful means with an alternative is a lesser violation of the constitutional rights, with no difference in the other details surrounding the Law and in the extent of realization of the proper purpose (Barak, Proportionality in Law, p. 399). In my view, the question of the extent to which the alternative means must realize the purpose of the Law is likely to arise here: must the realization be full and identical, or can we be satisfied with a high, although not identical, degree of realization? I do not think that this question must be decided, since in my view the Law must be struck down as it does not meet the third sub-criterion, as will be elucidated below.

9.    The third sub-criterion is the very heart of the principle of proportionality, which erects a “moral barrier” and prescribes that there must be an appropriate relationship between the benefit engendered by realization of the purpose of the law and between its violation of constitutional human rights. In relation to this sub-criterion, no amorphous, generalized balance is sought between the benefit and the harm. We must define what the harmful means has added to the purpose that the law sought to promote, and to examine this as against the additional violation of the constitutional right as a result of that same violating means prescribed in the law, and to compare their weights. Moreover, a situation is possible in which the balance can be reduced even beyond this. The starting point of the balancing of what has been added was the assumption that we are comparing the situation prior to the enactment of the harmful means with the situation following its enactment. As will be recalled, a less harmful means may possibly be found, one which does not wholly realize the aims of the Law, and which is not necessarily relevant to the second sub-criterion, but which is relevant in the context of the third sub-criterion. If such a means exists, then it will be the means figuring in the balance.

10.  Thus, the Law in the present case is not the only means to ensure the security of the residents of the State; it is only one of the many means of maintaining security alongside  many other laws, the activity of the security forces etc.. On the other hand, the means adopted by this Law cause a severe violation of the right to family life and the right to equality. In view of the complexity of the said rights and the many violations of them, the realistic path is to examine what the Law adds to security, and what it adds  to violation of the right. This is based on the assumption that security is also realized through many other means, and that the constitutional rights are violated by many other arrangements as well.

11.  The question in the framework of this sub-criterion in the present case is this: “Is the additional security that is obtained in the transition from the strictest detailed check possible according to the law of the foreign partner to a sweeping prohibition on entry into Israel properly proportionate to the additional violation of human dignity of the Israeli spouse that is caused by this transition?” (ibid., at p. 345). The answer to this question is that there is no proper proportion between the added contribution to the purpose of the Law as opposed to the additional violation of constitutional rights. Indeed, assuming that we are talking about a proper security purpose, then the means prescribed by the Law, and principally, the blanket prohibition, contribute to security. But this purpose is obtained at too heavy a price. A democratic state cannot allow itself to pay such a price, even if the purpose is apparently a proper one.

12.  Therefore, I concur in the decision of my colleague E.E. Levy that the order should be made absolute, and that the Citizenship Law should be declared void due to its non-constitutionality. I would add that alongside the legal difficulties that are raised by this Law, and due to which it should be struck down, this Law, like every law, was created in a particular social atmosphere and it affects this atmosphere. I can but rue the existence of this Law, which has the power to continue to make difficulties for the maintenance of the integrity of the delicate fabric of Israeli society, in all its sectors and varieties.

Justice E. Rubinstein

Justice E. Arbel

Justice Arbel joined in the deliberation of the petition in its second incarnation, following in the paths that were paved in the first judgment on the matter of the Citizenship Law; she elucidated her position and her reasoning, stressing the difficulty involved in making a decision.

In the view of Justice Arbel, and as the majority of the bench in the first judgment on the Citizenship Law held, the starting point of the deliberation must be that the purpose of the Law is security-related.  At its heart is the concern about involvement in activity against the security of the State of Israel on the part of foreigners who arrive from states or areas whose hostility to Israel is clear and known, and who wish to settle in Israel in the framework of family reunification with an Israeli partner.

The right to family life is a constitutional right that is derived from the constitutional value of human dignity. The right of a person to connect to a person and to establish a family with that person is intricately woven into the value of human dignity, and lies at its heart. It is one of the fundamental components that define a person’s identity and his ability to achieve self-realization. A person’s right to choose with whom to bind up his life is the ultimate expression of autonomy of the individual will. It expresses a person’s most basic needs for love, for belonging, for partnership and for propagation. As such, it stems from the very basis of human existence. However, the right to family life does not means that the foreign spouse of an Israeli citizen has a right to immigrate to Israel by virtue of the marital bond. As has been mentioned, a state, by virtue of its sovereignty, has the power to limit the entry of foreigners into its territory, and a foreigner has no vested right to enter the country. In principle, the State, due to its security requirements, may decide to prohibit entry into its territory of nationals of a hostile state or of those who arrive from places which are very hostile towards Israel and in which activity against Israel and its security is conducted. This is even more the case when Israel and the state of the foreigner for whom family reunification is sought are engaged in armed struggle, and it is certainly true in relation to a state that is subject to such varied, incessant significant security threats such as Israel. However, even in this situation, the Law must meet the constitutional criteria of legislative review.

In proceeding to examine whether the right to family life is violated by the Law, Justice Arbel was of the opinion, after difficult deliberation, that there is no escaping the conclusion that the right to family life comprises two aspects – the substantive right to marry a foreigner and the right to realize family life in Israel. The separation between the substantive right and the right to realize it is artificial, for without realization of the right, there is no right. The almost blanket limitation imposed by the Law on the possibility of establishing family life together with a foreign partner who is an inhabitant of the Area, or the subject of a state that poses a risk constitutes a violation of a constitutional right not only by its very nature, but also, and mainly, because the implementation of the said limitation is not egalitarian.

Indeed, the Law does not distinguish between the Jewish citizens and the Arab citizens of Israel. It does not distinguish between any citizens. The same rule applies to all. The distinction adopted by the Law is based on a relevant difference between foreign partners who originate from the Area and hostile states – places in which activity against Israel and its security is conducted – and foreign partners from other places which do not, apparently, invoke a presumption of danger of this sort. However, even in these circumstances, the focus of the examination is on the Israeli citizen. For the Arab citizens of Israel, the inhabitants of the Area, who are members of their nation, constitute a potential group with whom to establish family connections. As such, on the basis of the outcome, they are the main victims of the limitation according to the Law. When, according to the outcome, the Arab citizens of Israel are much more severely harmed as a result of the statutory limitation than are other citizens of Israel, such a broad assumption of dangerousness as prescribed by the Law cannot legitimize the violation of the right to family life, to equality, nor can it legitimize the violation of dignity. In practice, the violation of the right to family life occurs in a way that is unequal and discriminatory. Accordingly, it was ruled that the Law violates the right to family life, in its broad sense, and the right to equality.

According to Justice Arbel, the main difficulty posed by the Law in its current formulation focusses on the stage of examining proportionality in its narrow sense, which is a component of the criteria of the limitation clause in sec. 8 of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty.

Justice Arbel believes that it is very doubtful whether from a practical point of view, the detailed security check alone is capable, as the petitioners contend, of achieving the purpose of the Law. Relying on the assessment of the professionals, Justice Arbel concluded that despite the fact that individual scrutiny of partners who wished to enter would cause the least violation, from the point of view of severity, scope and depth, of the right to family life and of equality, it is not capable of realizing the purpose of the Law to the same degree as the broad prohibition under the Citizenship Law. Therefore, it was ruled that the Law stands up to the second sub-criterion of proportionality – the criterion of the means which is least intrusive, for no other less harmful means exists which will realize the purpose of the Law to the same extent as the means that was selected.

On the question of the proper ratio of the security purpose of the Law to the harm it causes to the basic right to family life, Justice Arbel’s opinion was that an examination of the “added value” that the Law provides as opposed to the “added harm” caused by its violation of the right of Israeli citizens to family life reveals that the Law is not proportional. This position is based on two elements. The first is the non-proportionality of the harm from the perspective of time, for recourse has been had to a temporary order whose validity has twice been extended by the Knesset and ten times by governmental decisions. The fact that the violation of basic rights was effected by a temporary order, due to the exigencies of the time, can indeed serve as an indication of the proportionality of the violation. The temporary nature of the violation, stemming from the fact that the legislation appears in the framework of a temporary order, has implications for assessing the magnitude, the depth and the breadth of the violation of the human right. However, since the Law was enacted as a temporary provision, its validity has been extended twelve times. There has been no significant change in the Law. A survey of the changes that were introduced into the Law in the years that elapsed since its enactment raises, at very least, a concern that more than being designed to moderate the severe harm that the Law represents, these changes were designed to provide a basis for it.  A temporary order is naturally suited to a temporary arrangement. Invoking it for purposes that touch on the core of the constitutional rights, such as in our case, gives rise to difficulties, particularly insofar as it entrenches a severe violation of human rights. Hence, the matter ought to have been regulated by statute.

The second base on which the position of Justice Arbel rests is the nature of the violation of basic rights. According to her, the potential added security provided by the restriction under the Law does not equal the additional certain damage in the wake of a real, concrete, profound and severe violation of the right to establish family life, of the right to equality and dignity, as well as a violation of their right to realize these rights in a state in which they are citizens with equal rights. To these is added the severe harm done to the feeling of belonging of the Arab citizens of Israel, which may intensify the feeling of alienation and rejection that is common amongst at least some of this public.

Justice Arbel arrives at this conclusion in light of the existence of a more proportional, even if not optimal, alternative – the detailed examination – which can be improved by combining it with additional means of checking and oversight. Together with this, Justice Arbel mentioned the conditions which could be added to the detailed examinations in order to demonstrate that the voiding of the Law need not necessarily leave the legislator empty-handed. A suitable arrangement could be basically similar to the outline proposed by Justice Levy in the first incarnation of the judgment in the matter of the Citizenship Law, which included three main components: as thorough and detailed an examination as possible in the circumstances; conditioning consideration of the application upon the foreign partner not being in Israel illegally and not being in Israel as long as permission to enter has not been given; similarly, a requirement of declaration of loyalty to the State of Israel and its laws, renouncing loyalty to any other state or political entity. It would also be possible to require longer minimum period of residence in Israel as a threshold condition for acquisition of Israeli citizenship, when the spouse is an inhabitant of the Area or a national of a hostile state. Commission of serious criminal offences will be cause for immediate termination of the process of family reunification. The State is authorized to attach certain conditions to a person’s entry into Israel, the purpose of which is to reduce the security danger he represents, such as a prohibition on visiting his original place of residence or a prohibition on making contact with certain elements if they are involved in activity against the security of the State. Justice Arbel does not rule out the possibility that the arrangement that will be introduced will distinguish between territories in Judea and Samaria and between the Gaza Strip and hostile nations, if the experts on behalf of the respondent think that there is a difference between them with respect to the ability to gather information for the purpose of conducting an individual examination .

Justice Arbel proposed to defer the declaration of voidness for a year from the time of publication of the judgment, mainly because this is a complex subject which is of great public importance. The legislator must weigh the subject in all its aspects, and formulate a proper, balanced arrangement, or alternatively, prepare itself for the reality that will exist once the Law is no longer in force. The legislative arrangement will be shaped and set in place by the legislature, if it sees fit to do so, for that is its role and its expertise.

Justice H. Melcer

Introduction

1.    Let me begin by saying that in my opinion, the order nisi that was issued in this case should be cancelled. This is because the arrangements that were prescribed in the Law that is being challenged are, at this time, the lesser evil, and “better safe than sorry”. In the area with which we are dealing, the principle that reflects the above saying is the precautionary principle. This principle has established itself in recent years in relation to various subjects, and it seems to be applicable to the present matter as well.

The Present Petitions and the Normative Basis

2.    The petitions before us once again raise the question of the constitutionality of the current provisions of the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order), 5763-2003 (hereinafter: the Law, and together with the amendments made to it: the amended Law). The previous formulation of the Law was examined in the framework of HCJ 7052/03 Adalah – Legal Center for Minority Arab Rights in Israel v. Minister of the Interior [1] (hereinafter: Adalah Case), and the petitions in that matter were ultimately denied.

After the judgment was handed down in the Adalah Case, the Law was amended, and changes were introduced to it. Against the amended Law the present petitions were lodged, and in the period during which the petition has been pending, the validity of the amended Law has been extended several times by the Government with the approval of the Knesset.

3.    The amended Law provides that the Minister of the Interior will not grant Israeli citizenship or a permit to remain in Israel to a person who is an inhabitant of Judaea and Samaria or of the Gaza Strip (hereinafter: the Area), or a person who is a citizen or resident of Iran, Lebanon, Syria or Iraq. The amended Law also provides that the commanders in the Area will not provide the inhabitants of the Area with a permit to remain in Israel.

Several exceptions were made to this provision, by virtue of which the governing bodies mentioned in the Law were authorized to provide a permit to remain in Israel, or a status in Israel in particular cases.

In the amendment of 2007, several innovations were introduced into the amended Law: the establishment of a committee charged with examining the provision of a permit to remain in Israel for humanitarian reasons; a broadening of the geographical scope of the Law as mentioned above; and an extension of the definition of the security risk to a situation in which activity was taking place in the area of residence of the person that was liable to endanger state security.

Current Data concerning the Amended Law in Light of the Security Situation (according to the Respondents)

4.    The point of departure of the amended Law is that at this time, it is not possible to conduct a detailed diagnosis for the purpose of predicting whether a person is dangerous with respect to the entire body of requests to settle in Israel by virtue of the process of family reunification. Therefore, the amended Law prescribes a model based on risk profiling.

Thus, inter alia, special arrangements were fixed for obtaining a status in Israel, and women and men who were not included in the clear risk groups were excluded. Authority was also given to deviate from these arrangements for special humanitarian reasons.

5.    The respondents declare that from August 2005 until April 2010, the Ministry of the Interior approved the granting of status in Israel to 4118 subjects of the Palestinian Authority on the basis of applications for family reunification. To this data must be added the activity of the Professional-Humanitarian Committee. Up to April 2010, in excess of 600 applications were submitted to the Committee. More than 282 applications were considered by the Committee. 33 applications were handed on with positive recommendations to the Minister of the Interior and approved by him, and the applicants were granted permits to remain in Israel.

From the above it emerges that despite the security risk,  in recent years more than 4,000 Palestinians were granted a status in Israel by virtue of the exceptions prescribed in the amended Law.

The Present Security Situation

6.    From the statistics of the Security Forces, the following facts emerge:

From 2006 until April 2010, some 200 suicide attacks were averted. In addition, in the course of the years 2009-2010, the General Security Services averted dozens of intended suicide and kidnapping attacks at earlier stages of their preparation, We were further informed that the terrorist organizations continue to attempt, constantly, to carry out attacks in Israel, and to recruit activists and arms for perpetrating attacks.

7.    The assessment of the security forces is that radicalization amongst the Palestinian population is on the rise. This applies to the Gaza Strip, and to Judea and Samaria and the Jerusalem area.

8.    From the above we learn that contrary to the impression of relative quiet, attempts are being made to carry out attacks in the heart of the State of Israel. In order to carry out attacks, cooperation with those who are originally “inhabitants of the Area”, who have settled in Israel, is necessary. In almost every such attack to date within the territory of Israel, a person bearing Israeli documentation was involved at some stage or other of the planning, abetting or perpetration of the attack.  

The amended Law is one of the ways of preventing this.

Statistics about the Involvement in Hostile Terrorist Activity of Palestinians who were Originally Inhabitants of the Area, who Reside in Israel After having been Granted Status in the Wake of the Process of Family Reunification

9.    From 2001 until 2010, 54 Palestinian subjects, who acquired or sought to acquire status in Israel in the framework of the process of family reunification, or elements connected to them directly, were involved in terrorist activities that were actually carried out, or that were prevented at the last minute.

In this context it should be explained that according to the approach of the security forces, the very entry of a Palestinian subject into Israel in the framework of the “graduated test” adopted by the Israeli authorities is what makes it “attractive”. Naturally, insofar as the person bears an Israeli identity card or driving license, his “potential contribution” to the causes of terror also grows.

Failures of Individual Screening and the Age Groups in the Profile of Dangerousness for Perpetrating Hostile Terrorist Acts Against the State of Israel in Accordance with the Amended Law

10.  According to the statistics of the Security forces, since September 2005 632 applications to acquire a status in Israel by virtue of family reunification were rejected on grounds of involvement in terrorist activity.

It should be understood that of the 632 applications that were rejected as stated, in 273 cases the obstacle arose after the status was granted or preliminary approval was given in the framework of the “graduated process”. It will be stressed that in relation to these applicants,  the information from which it emerged that they were perpetrators, terrorists or helpers was discovered after the individual screening had not produced any suspicious information in relation to them.

Hence one can discern the inherent difficulty in relying on detailed screening, while ignoring the age-risk profile of the inhabitants of the Palestinian Authority.

The activity of terrorist organizations is based on the recruitment and identification of activists who are not known to the security forces in Israel from the outset as terror activists, in the format of penetration into Israel by means of marriage. For these seekers of status individual screening is in any case not effective, for at the time of submission of the application these people are not involved in terror and therefore there is no information arousing suspicion about them.

Moreover, the failures of individual screening are aggravated with the routinization of the phenomenon known as the “lone attacker”, who acts without affiliation to any terrorist organization.

Reactions of the Petitioners to the Above Statistics

11.  The response of the petitioners in HCJ 830/07 to the above information was a general denial. Furthermore, they and the other petitioners repeated the legal arguments that they raised in the Adalah Case and in the petitions before us.

12.  The petitioners in HCJ 5030/07 asked to discuss the violation of the rights of minors in the provisions of the amended Law, and commented that the respondents had not supplied separate data concerning the involvement of the children of inhabitants who acquired a status or a permit in attacks. Moreover, and according to them, the status of the children who live in East Jerusalem was not accorded separate treatment, as was required according to their approach. They also added that the credibility of the security argument is undermined by the application of the amended Law to children, as well as the willingness to furnish them with CCA (Coordination and Communications Administration) permits alongside the refusal to grant them permanent status and social rights.

Deliberation and Decision

13.  The basis for the allegations of the petitioners is in the fact that the amended Law violates the basic constitutional right to family life.

In my opinion, even though the right to family life is a basic right, the possibility of realizing it in the state of citizenship of the Israeli partner does not have constitutional status, as I shall elucidate below.

Rejection of the Argument that the Right of the Israeli Partner to Bring the Foreign Partner into Israel is a Constitutional Right that is Protected by virtue of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty

Under the provisions of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, the right to enter Israel is granted only to Israeli citizens (sec. 6(b)). The right to leave the country, on the other hand, is granted to every person (sec. 6(a)). My opinion is that the right to enter Israel is the constitutional right of a citizen, and not one conferred upon every person, as I will explain forthwith.

According to the opinion of the majority of the justices in the Adalah Case, the basic constitutional right to family life is a derived right from the “mother right” to human dignity, or a type of right derived from a derived right (a “grandchild right”) to the right of equality that is included in the “framework right” of human dignity. The question here, therefore, is how far the “rights without a particular name” can be stretched. It would seem that when the extent of the derived right is not consistent with the reach of the particular constitutional “mother right”, the latter must prevail as being lex specialis. That is to say, in the said case the particular “mother right” – the right of entry to Israel, as defined in the Basic Law –  prevails over the derived right – the right to family life in Israel of the Israeli citizen, and its ramifications for the possibilities of the foreign partner and children to enter the State and remain there. 

Contrary to the petitioners’ argument, comparative law has not recognized a constitutional right of the right of a spouse who is a citizen to cause his/her partner to acquire citizenship or another status for remaining in the country of citizenship (of the former). Only recently, this rule was again approved in the European Court of Human Rights, in the case of Kiyutin v. Russia [21].

14.  This leads to the conclusion that the petitions should be denied, even if only on the basis of the fact that in my view, the alleged right on which the petitions are based does not pass the “first stage” of the constitutional examination. At the same time, out of respect for the opposing – reasoned and detailed – views of the majority justices in the Adalah Case, and of some of my colleagues here, I will continue with my analysis and I will discuss the applicability of the terms of the limitation clause to the entire matter.

15.  There would seem to be universal agreement that the requirement of the limitation clause that the violation be “by law or according to law”, i.e., by virtue of explicit authorization, is met here.

16.  It would appear that the majority of the justices on the bench, too, are of the view that it cannot be said that the amended Law, in its present format and its temporary nature, is not in keeping, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, with the values of the State of Israel.

17.  The next test that the amended Law must pass is that of the “proper purpose”. In the Adalah Case, most of the justices agreed in fact with the view that the Law was designed to ensure Israel’s security. And I, too, think so.

18.  What remains to be examined, therefore, is the proportionality of the Law according to three sub-tests:

(a)   The test of the rational connection.

(b)   The test of the least intrusive means.

(c)   The test of the proportional means senso strictu.

The main dispute in this case turns on the third of the above sub-tests.

At this point I wish to show that the amended Law satisfies the above criterion, in that it represents the precautionary principle, which has been developed in comparative law for situations of predictable uncertainty and catastrophic risks.

The precautionary principle is a relatively new principle in public law, but within a few years it has justifiably become – with the support of liberal jurists and the case law – one of the important principles in a number of areas, such as the environment, the use of nuclear energy and nuclear waste, use of medications, genetic engineering, oversight of food, sources of water and more.

In implementing this principle in the areas in which it was already recognized, the precautionary principle was designed to deal with the difficulty of the gap between the existing knowledge at a given time and the enormous and uncertain  potential harm that was liable to be caused by an activity, if appropriate precautionary measures were not adopted in relation to that activity. From the outset, the principle allows the authority (the legislature or the executive) to adopt measures designed to prevent the catastrophe when a significant threat of irreversible, wide-spread damage exists, even if the probability is low and even when there is no proven scientific certainty that the damage will indeed eventuate.

Many fine scholars have studied the origin of the precautionary principle. Some have held that this principle is simply a matter of pure logic. According to others, it is typical of the modern approach of citizens and governments who are attempting to reduce risks, or to change the emphases of various disciplines and values (science, economics, ethics, philosophy politics and active law – for the protection of the public) that prevail in society. My present analysis follows the path of the research of Professor Funk (Björn M. Funk, “The Precautionary Principle”, in The Earth Charter: Framework for Global Governance 191, 196 (Klaus Bosselmann and J. Ronald Engel eds., 2010), although I believe that it is possible to find echoes of this principle already in the words of Proverbs 28:14: “Happy is the man that feareth always…”. In all events, in modern law the development of this principle is attributed to German jurisprudence, in which it also came to be known as the Vorsorgeprinzip.

The principle first received a universal legal formulation in 1992 in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.  Since then, the principle has been modified many times in form and content, and it has had some twenty formulations.

The commonly accepted approach today with respect to its definition is formulated as follows:

Where an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public bears the burden of proof. (Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle (1998), http://www.gdrc.org/u-gov/precaution-3.html).

This approach is more simply and memorably formulated in the English expression, “Better safe than sorry.”

(a)   Dr. Liav Orgad in his article (“Immigration, Terror and Human Rights: Israel’s Immigration Policy in Times of Emergency (Following HCJ 7052/03Adalah v. Minister of the Interior)”, 25(2) Mehkarei Mishpat  (2009), 485) offers a number of reasons why, in the circumstances, the basic constitutional right to family reunification in Israel may be violated, even if the percentage of terrorists among the “family migrants” is small. They are as follows:

(1)   The relevant question, in his opinion, is not how many “marriage migrants” were involved in acts of terror or how many acts of terror occurred due to their immigration, but rather, how many victims there were and how much damage was caused.

(2)   It must be borne in mind that the success of a “quality” terror attack exacts a cost that is far greater than the number of victims: it has far-reaching strategic, political and psychological ramifications. A successful terror attack has ramifications for the state economy, for tourism, for international relations, for the deterrent ability of the state, for its ability to stand up to threats and similar variables that are part, or should be part, of every mathematical equation or formula.

(3)   The question is not only how many acts of terror were committed by “family migrants”, but what percentage do these constitute of total terrorist acts that were committed by Israeli citizens.

(4)   Even if we accept that the state must take risks in order to realize basic constitutional rights of its citizens, we cannot ignore the fact that the risk that the state is required to take in the case of marriage migration of enemy subjects stems not from citizens of the state, but from foreign partners.

(5)   The present version of the Law contains five exceptions, which in any case obligate the state to take risks; these exceptions allow for detailed screening of about thirty percent of the applications.

(6)   From an institutional point of view, value-based decisions of this type ought to be made by the parliament and not by the court, unless there was a flaw in the decision-making process or it was based on alien considerations or it is irrational.

20.  It now remains for us, therefore, to examine the compatibility of the precautionary principle with the test of proportionality. The leading European decision on this subject is Pfizer Animal Health SA v. Council of the European Union [22] of the European Court of Justice, which in effect combined the precautionary principle with the criterion of proportionality and ruled, in our terms, that in cases in which the conditions for the application of the precautionary principle are met, one cannot say that the acts of the authority did not fulfill the requirements of proportionality, for in such situations, preference is accorded to the considerations of the regulatory authority, since it bears the responsibility if the catastrophe eventuates, and it will be required to justify its actions, or its omissions.

Let us now move on to discuss in greater detail the third sub-criterion of proportionality i.e., the “test of relativity”.

21.The criterion of “proportionality senso strictu” requires, as is known, that in order to justify the violation of a constitutional right, there must be a proper and positive relationship between the added benefit ensuing from realization of the legislative purpose and between the added harm that is liable to be caused thereby to the constitutional right. In my humble opinion, when the added benefit that the Law under scrutiny wishes to provide is the prevention of anticipated damage,  and particularly in situations in which the precautionary principle is apt, the relevant legislation will successfully pass this sub-test.

Thus, in the present case, the alleged additional violation of the right to family life, which is of high probability in the wake of the provisions of the amended Law, carries less weight than the anticipated harm.

22.  Moreover, and on the contrary. As is known, the legislator is afforded “legislative room for maneuver”. Within this room, the question with which we are confronted is not whether we would succeed in devising a better arrangement, but whether the arrangement that was selected is constitutional, i.e., whether it falls within the “legislative room for maneuver” within which the legislator is permitted to operate. Indeed, as Dr. Orgad demonstrates in his above article, the legislator not infrequently fixes provisions and prohibitions on the basis of statistical generalizations that are considered reliable, even if most of the individuals who belong to a particular risk group are not dangerous on an individual level, but the level of danger presented by this group as a whole is higher than that presented by other groups. Thus, for example, the generalization whereby young people have dangerous driving habits, and therefore restrictions and special statutory provisions will apply with respect to their driving, does not mean that all youngsters, or even a majority of them, drive in a dangerous manner, and it does not require a cancelling of the restrictions in the law that are applied to the driving of youngsters per se. This is particularly the case in relation to the precautionary principle.

23.  Application of the precautionary principle in the present case is justified, for this is a situation in which the uncertainty is great and even if the alleged anticipated danger is relatively very low, the tragedy that could be caused is absolutely terrible, and there is in fact no alternative for preventing it other than by means of a blanket restriction (with exceptions, as in relation to the amended Law). Moreover, the parameters for comparison between the potential damage and the violation of the right set up different values, which are difficult to present and assess in juxtaposition.

24.  The precautionary principle has another quality that is relevant to our matter, viz., the fact that it requires a permanent, ongoing examination with respect to the parameters defining it. This is consistent with legislation of temporary orders, for limitation of time, per se, contains an element of proportionality.

25.  We learn from comparative law that recourse to temporary legislation is appropriate in four alternative situations (see: Jacob Garsen, “Temporary Legislation”, 74 U. Chi. L. Rev. 247, 273-279 (2007)):

(a)   Constraints due to  urgency or emergency;

(b)   A controlled trial of a new system, or a new policy or as a means of receiving information;

(c)   A response to defects in existing normative situations;

(d)   An attempt to overcome cognitive biases.

Simply put, it appears to me that most of the above situations exist with respect to the reality that gave rise the amended Law and its extensions, and it can only be hoped that the reasons that justify adopting these steps will disappear in future. In the last update submitted to us by the respondents on 21.12.11, they said that an administrative study project is being conducted by the Government with the objective of formulating a comprehensive legal arrangement regarding the policy for entry into and settlement in Israel, as part of the State’s handling of the issue presented by legal and illegal immigration to Israel.

In view of the above – in the framework of the abovementioned administrative study which is at present being carried out, or parallel to it, in deliberations towards extending the validity of the amended Law – emphasis should be placed at least on two subjects:

(a)   A thorough reexamination of the severity of the present risks, while attempting to neutralize the cognitive biases that exist in these fields.

(b)   The provision of appropriate solutions for the problems and the status of minors, the children of the families to which the Law refers. On this matter I concur, fully, in the opinion of my colleague Justice M. Naor.

This last matter brings us to the issue of relief.

Relief

26.  In my view, as stated, the petitions should be denied. However, even those of my colleagues who hold that the Law should be declared void are of the opinion that the decision of voidness should be deferred for a significant period (up to nine months), in order to allow for another statutory arrangement to be devised. In my humble opinion, there are two fallacies in this approach:

(a)   At the time of writing this opinion, the said Law is scheduled to lapse on 31.1.2012, and one cannot know if it will be extended and how. Hence, whoever advocates striking it down is in fact giving the amended Law life, or is suggesting to the authority to extend its force even beyond the period allocated to it. This is problematic in view of the substance and the special nature of such a Temporary Order Law.

(b)   The relief that my colleagues propose proves that even according to them, the amended Law at this stage is essential (even if not necessarily in its present format) and proportional and that it in fact meets the requirements of the limitation clause, for apparently, the deferral provision, too, must conform to constitutional criteria.

Justice M. Naor

Justice Naor restated her position in HCJ 7052/03 Adalah – Legal Center for Minority Arab Rights in Israel v. Minister of the Interior [1] (hereinafter: the Adalah Case), according to which the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order), 5763-2003 (hereinafter: the Law) should not be voided. Justice Naor noted that with the passage of time, the number of families who married prior to the decision of the Government and the Law and who are not able to realize family reunification has decreased; in her opinion, this alleviates somewhat the harsh consequences of the Law. Justice Naor added that without making light of the hardship caused to families that were established subsequent to the government decision or the Law, the Israeli spouses who chose to establish families after the rules of the game had been changed, with persons whose entry into Israel was prohibited, did so in the knowledge of the legal situation in Israel.

Justice Naor reiterated her position concerning the scope of the constitutional right to family life. She discussed the fact that the right to family life, which is a whole world, has many derivatives, and that the constitutional protection of the right to family life does not provide universal coverage on the constitutional level. Similarly, in her view, no general duty should be imposed on the state to permit family reunification within the territory of the State of Israel. Against this backdrop, Justice Naor determined that the constitutional protection does not apply to the possibility of realizing family life with a foreign spouse in Israel in particular, which is only one of the derivatives of the right to family life. Justice Naor emphasized that in other democratic states as well, the constitutional right of a citizen or a resident to bring a foreign spouse into his country and to choose the country in which family life will be realized has not been recognized.

Justice Naor noted that even on the assumption that the right in question is a constitutional one, it was agreed that there is no obligation to permit the right to be realized at all times under all conditions. Justice Naor cited several examples from the case law of the Supreme Court, which permitted postponement or deferment of the realization of the constitutional right, out of consideration for the public interest. Justice Naor pointed out that in a similar fashion, in the present case, realization of the right to bring a foreign spouse into Israel was deferred for a fixed, known time (as opposed to some unclear, undefined time): until a woman reached the age of 25 years old, and a man – 35 years old. Justice Naor ruled that having regard to this and in view of the special, serious public interest underlying the Law, the Law meets the criteria of proportionality.

Justice Naor added that the provisions of the Law applying to minors allow minors not to be separated from a parent with custody who is entitled to reside in Israel. Justice Naor added that the State explained that minors who received a resident license or permit to remain in Israel, as relevant in accordance with the provisions of the Law, would continue to benefit from the same status even after they reached the age of 14 or 18, as relevant, on condition that they continued to reside permanently in Israel, and in the absence of any criminal or security-related obstacle. In light of the above, Justice Naor ruled that there is no cause for concern that minors, or minors who have reached majority, will be separated from their families; hence, in her opinion, intervention of the Court is not warranted, even in relation to the provisions of the Law that involve minors.

President D. Beinisch

1.    The question of the constitutionality of the provisions of the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order), 5763-2003 (hereinafter: the Citizenship Law or the Law) has come before us once again for adjudication. The Citizenship Law raises several basic issues that Israeli society must confront; first and foremost amongst these is the constant need to find the correct balance between security requirements and protection of human rights. The sweeping arrangements established in the Law give rise to difficult, complex questions  which are both legal and social in nature. These arrangements demonstrate the almost impossible reality with which the State of Israel is confronted both internally and externally. Israel is not the only state dealing with questions regarding immigration policy but it seems that the situation here is different from everywhere else. Israel is in a constant state of war or  “quasi-war”, and those who seek family reunification in Israel come from areas that are in a state of bitter conflict with Israel. But together with this bitter conflict, there are Arab citizens living in Israel who maintain ties with these people. Some of the ties are family ties. Those Israeli Arab residents and citizens seek to realize their rights, including their right to family life. Because the Arab minority constitutes the absolute majority of those seeking family reunification, any violation of their right to realize their family life is also a violation of equality. However, a certain number of spouses of Israeli citizens, who were permitted to live in Israel for the sake of family reunification, have abused their status and joined terrorist organizations; and ultimately, it was murderous terrorist attacks that spawned the need to legislate the Law and to adopt additional security measures.

In this complex reality, Israel must find an arrangement which, on the one hand, will allow for the maintenance of the security and protection of the State, but on the other hand, will not violate basic rights beyond what is necessary. Finding this balance is not a simple task. Every arrangement must be based on Israel’s social, cultural, ethical and legal background. The security situation with which Israel has been dealing since the day of its establishment must be its backdrop, but it cannot ignore the fact that the problems of security are a permanent fixture, and unfortunately, it is difficult to regard this situation as a temporary one.

2.    It is extremely doubtful whether the changes made to the Citizenship Law since the first judgment limit its application. The point of departure according to President Barak, in whose position I concurred in the first judgment, was a person’s basic right to choose a spouse and to establish a family unit with that partner in his country. This right, so we ruled there, is severely breached by the provision of the Citizenship Law in its establishment of a blanket prohibition against the entry of residents of Israeli-occupied territories, irrespective of whether that spouse poses a security risk. In our judgment we recognized the importance of the security requirements, and even of the need to establish presumptions of risk. At the same time, we pointed out that there cannot be an all-inclusive negation of basic rights, without any concrete investigation of the particular person and situation.

3.    In the framework of the amendments that were introduced after the first judgment, the “presumption” of security risk was not changed, and it was even extended. Under the Law at present, not only is no concrete investigation of the risk posed by the spouse or his/her family members or immediate surroundings required, but a general profile of dangerous activity that is taking place at the spouse’s place of residence is deemed sufficient. The list of the countries from which entry into Israel is prohibited was extended to all the states that are in a state of belligerence with Israel. The Law, in its former version and as formulated at present, does not allow for a concrete check of those seeking family reunification, and it does not have recourse to other means which involve a lesser violation of rights.

4.    We will also mention that not only the changes – the few changes – that were introduced into the Law are the focus of the petitions before us. They are accompanied by the fact that the Citizenship Law, which was enacted as a temporary order, has acquired permanent status on our law books. The Law has been extended twelve times since its enactment in 2003. The significance of this for a constitutional analysis of the Law is huge. The fact that the arrangement established in the Citizenship Law was enacted by way of a temporary order was the factor underlying the opinions of a significant number of judges in the first judgment, who held that in view of its set duration, the temporary arrangement obviates the need for a determination concerning a constitutional infringement and its proportionality. Reality, as we now know, has proved otherwise. The temporary order was extended many times, and even if it is possible that the same security need drove the extension, the question still arises as to whether, by means of the narrow chink through which temporary orders gain entry, the legislator was not attempting to introduce matters that would better have been given serious consideration, and in relation to which their introduction through the front door  should have been examined.

5.    In this situation, I can only repeat the position I expressed at length in the first judgment. The amendments that were introduced into the Law do not ameliorate the violation of the right to family life and the right to equality. I already pointed out in the previous judgment that absolute security does not exist in Israel, nor in any other state. Taking a risk is a necessary element of life in society and in the state, and the question, ultimately, is the degree of calculated risk that Israeli society is able to assume.

6.    In this context I will point out that I do not agree with recourse to the “precautionary principle” proposed by my colleague Justice Melcer. The precautionary principle is designed to deal with catastrophes when there is no scientific basis for their eventuation or for assessing the damage that they will cause. This principle allows for reduction, to the point of absolute obliteration, of the margins of risk that society is prepared to assume. By virtue of this principle it is possible to take far-reaching preventive action even in the absence of sufficient proof that the catastrophe will occur. My approach is that the conception of “preventive precaution” which gives priority to adopting the safe line – even where there is no direct causal connection between the act that is averted and its possible consequences – is an extremely wide one. It poses a significant risk not only of infringement of constitutional rights, but also of infringement of the processes of decision-making. This is because, if it is preferable to be safe in every case, there is no need to investigate the alternatives that reduce the violation. This approach has real potential for creating a slippery slope that is likely to lead to recourse to expansive regulatory means in order to prevent risk. It is not only the danger that was averted following recourse to the precautionary principle that must be considered, but also the risk that this itself creates.

7.    I do not concur in the position taken by some of my colleagues whereby the risk posed from permitting family reunification, subject to detailed checks or adoption of other means of testing is such that it justifies so broad a violation of basic constitutional rights. I am not arguing with the security needs. However, we must ensure that recourse to principles such as the precautionary principle – the goal of which is to impose very broad arrangements in order to prevent potential danger – do not themselves cause real harm. The Citizenship Law in its present formulation entails very significant harm. It impacts our most basic democratic conceptions. It involves a serious violation of the constitutional rights of the Arab citizens of Israel.

8.    My approach, as stated, is that even in its present formulation, the Law cannot be upheld due to its non-proportional violation of the right to family life and the right to equality. I believe that the proper balance was not achieved when the Law was analyzed in the first judgment, and the amendments that were introduced did not bring it to the point at which we could say that the Law is constitutional despite its violation of basic rights. The violation must – and also can – be ameliorated by changing the arrangement, be it by conducting detailed checks of those who seek family reunification; be it by allowing the refutation of the presumption of risk; or be it by broadening the possibility of acquiring status in Israel for humanitarian reasons. All these must find expression in legislation.

9.    Therefore, if my view is accepted, I would propose to my colleagues to order the Law to be invalidated, but to rule that it may be extended in its present format, if necessary, for an additional period not to exceed nine months. I am aware of the fact that in doing so, we will be allowing a law to remain in force despite its non-constitutionality. Nevertheless, in the present case immediate repeal of the Law would change the legal situation that pertained in the last eight years without a transitional period. An immediately-effective change in the reality will lead to a lack of preparedness on the part of the authorities responsible for implementation of the Law, and will increase the danger to which the public is exposed. Secondly – and particularly – this amount of time is required in order to allow the legislator to formulate a statutory arrangement.

Justice A. Grunis

The words of President A Barak (EA 2/84 Nayman v. Chairman of the Central Elections Committee for the Eleventh Knesset [6], at 310; CrA 6669/96 Kahana v. State of Israel [7], at 580) are based on the statement of Justice Robert Jackson of the United States Supreme Court in 1949 (Terminiello v. City of Chicago [10]). Justice Jackson, who was in the minority, warned his colleagues, the majority justices, in the following words:

There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact  (ibid., at p. 337; my emphasis – A.G.).

These words of warning are what guided me when I expressed my opinion in the earlier process (Adalah Case), in which we were asked to examine the constitutionality of the Citizenship Law. I believed then, and this is still my opinion today, that the Law meets the criterion of constitutionality.

2.    I am prepared to assume that the Law infringes the constitutional right of the Israeli couple to family life. I stress that this is only an assumption. This emphasis is intended to clarify that in principle, I am not one of those who accord the explicit constitutional rights in Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty extremely wide, comprehensive significance. As I said in my opinion in the previous process:

The very broad definition of the constitutional right … leads to a situation in which quite a few laws will be considered as violating constitutional rights … the outcome is liable to be a devaluation of constitutional rights (Adalah Case, at p. 513); and see my opinion in  HCJ  8276/05 Adalah, Legal Center for Minority Arab Rights in Israel v. Minister of Defense [8]).

Nevertheless, in view of the abovementioned assumption, I considered the question of whether the Law met the criteria of the limitation clause. I focused on the third criterion of proportionality, known as proportionality sensu stricto. According to this criterion, we must look at the relationship between the social benefit of the law that is under scrutiny and the damage caused by the constitutional violation. On this matter, I can only mention once again the certain harm that will be caused as a result of the entry into Israel of thousands of Palestinians, who have received the status of permanent residents or citizens as a result of marriage to Israeli citizens. On the basis of past data, there is no doubt that a certain percentage of them will be involved in terrorist acts. Indeed, the percentage of those involved in terror is expected to be very low, even negligible. However, even if the extent of the damage that will be caused cannot be assessed, it is clear that it will occur. There is no need to describe the consequences of terrorist acts.

3.    The relationship between social benefit and harm must be examined also on the assumption of a mistake on the part of the person who would negate the Law, as opposed to a mistake on the part of one who holds the view that the Law meets the constitutional criterion. Disqualification of the Law will lead to the entry of thousands of Palestinians into the State following their marriages to Israeli citizens. If it should emerge in the future that those who would disqualify the Law were mistaken in their low estimate of the risk, it will not be possible to turn back the clock. In other words, if – Heaven forbid – it emerges that there is involvement in terrorist acts, it will definitely not be possible to correct the mistake. It may be possible to revoke the status in Israel of those who turn out to be involved in terrorist activity, but this solution will be available only after the damage – harm to human lives – has already been done. On the other hand, if the Law does meet the constitutional criterion, this will lead to harm to Israeli citizens, who are not able to establish families with Palestinians, or to a familial separation between the Israeli spouse and the Palestinian spouse. I am certainly not belittling this harm, and what is more, from a numerical point of view quite a number of Israeli citizens are effected. Nevertheless, this violation of the right to family life of Israeli citizens has to be weighed up against the certain harm, on the basis of past experience, to the lives and persons of Israeli citizens. We must consider another point – one which I mentioned in my opinion in the previous process. None of the judges who are of the opinion that the Law cannot stand, whether in the previous process or in the present one, provided any example or precedent from any other country for a similar situation of a law being struck down.  Israel has been in a constant battle for decades against states and organizations that wish it ill. Even if the status of residents of the Palestinian Authority is not identical to that of nationals of an enemy state, it is more similar to that latter status than to the status of nationals of a friendly state. To the best of my knowledge, there has not been even a single case in which a state permitted entry into its territory of thousands of  nationals of an enemy, whether for the purpose of marriage or any other, at a time of war or of armed struggle. There is no reason for Israel to be a pioneer in this field.

4.    In the framework of her opinion, my colleague Justice M. Naor discussed the arguments on the subject of minors. I concur in her opinion on that issue.

5.    In summary, I stand firmly by the opinion I expressed in the past: the Law passes the test of constitutionality, and therefore, the petitions should be denied.

Justice E. Hayut

In the Adalah Case, I concurred in the opinions of those justices who held that although the Citizenship Law is consistent with the values of the State of Israel and was enacted for a proper purpose, the arrangements it provides are not proportionate, and for this reason they do not pass the constitutional test. Following this judgment the Law was amended on 28.3.2007 (hereinafter: the second amendment), and three central changes were introduced: first, sec. 3A1 was added to the Law, whereby the Minister of Interior is permitted, “for special humanitarian reasons” and on the recommendation of a professional committee that he appointed for that purpose, to grant a license for temporary residence in Israel or to approve an application for a permit for an inhabitant of the area whose relative is in Israel lawfully to remain in the State; second, the Law was applied, in addition to inhabitants of the Area, also to residents of Iran, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq (see the Addendum to the Law); third, the definition of prevention for security reasons appearing in sec. 3D of the Law was broadened. The last two amendments in effect extended the scope of the prohibitions established in the Law, and therefore they cannot provide a response to the lack of proportionality which afflicted the arrangements in the Law in its previous format. As opposed to these, the amending arrangement appearing in sec. 3A1 of the Law allows for a license for temporary residence or a permit to stay in the country to be granted “for special humanitarian reasons”, but this is an exception designed for exceptional circumstances and rare cases only, and it therefore cannot repair the defect of lack of proportionality from which the Citizenship Law suffers.

2.    In the Adalah Case I expressed my position that the enactment of laws that provide a response to security needs is one of the means available to us as a state in order to deal with the security risks to which the Israeli public is exposed. I further pointed out that imposing restrictions on family reunification for security reasons is a necessity, and should not be condemned. This is still my opinion. Nevertheless, it seems that the problem of lack of proportionality that taints the Law has not been resolved. I discussed the core of the problem in this context in the Adalah Case in saying that the Law “does not include any individual criteria for examining the security risk of an inhabitant of the Area”, and I added that given the special, complex security situation of the State of Israel, a presumption of risk in the matter of family reunification is warranted, but this presumption should be rebuttable in the framework of an individual, detailed examination which should be permitted in each and every case.

3.    The Citizenship Law, even in its format after the second amendment, continues to preserve the blanket prohibition prescribed in sec. 2 of the Law concerning the granting of status to an inhabitant of the Area (except for a general criterion of age), and largely blocks the path even of those who meet the age criterion or who comply with the requirement concerning the “special humanitarian reasons”.  This is in view of the broadened criteria that were added in relation to the existence of “security-related prevention”; they now also cover a concern about a security risk that stems, inter alia, from the fact that in the place of residence of an applicant who is an inhabitant of the Area, activity is being conducted that is liable to pose a threat to the security of the State of Israel or its citizens. The second amendment to the Citizenship Law does not, therefore, offer any response to the problems emanating from the collective arrangements that it prescribes, and apart from really exceptional cases, no detailed check is carried out by virtue of this Law in relation to those who seek to reunification with their families, and they are not given any practical opportunity to refute in a positive manner the presumption of presenting a danger that is attributed to them. This constitutes a severe violation of the constitutional right to family life of each of the individuals in the group, and it is exacerbated by the fact that this is not a short-term, targeted violation but a violation with long-term consequences. Moreover, the Law was indeed intended to provide a solution to the security needs of the State of Israel, given the armed struggle that the Palestinian terrorist organizations wage against Israel’s citizens. At the same time, the collective nature of the policy anchored in the Citizenship Law – which in fact has the capacity to negate the particular identity of the individuals who belong to that collective – and the disproportionate violation of equality due the arrangements prescribed in the Law, are liable to create a semblance of illegitimate racial profiling which ought to be avoided. When the collective prevention prescribed by the Law remains in place; when the second amendment broadened the collective criteria blocking family reunification between Israeli Arabs and spouses who are inhabitants of the area; and when the people concerned are not given the chance to prove, on the individual level, that they do not pose a security threat, the constitutional defect of lack of proportionality that impaired the Law remains.

4.    My colleague Justice H. Melcer believes that in this case, the “precautionary principle” ought to be applied. On this matter I prefer the stance of my colleague President D. Beinisch. The clear disadvantage of this principle, or at least in the way that my colleague Justice Melcer wishes to implement it, lies in the fact that it ignores the fact that the all-encompassing means adopted in the face of the danger whose prevention is sought, in itself creates dangers and harms that are liable to be significant for society or at least for certain groups therein. Therefore, the conclusion is unavoidable that application of the precautionary principle in the said manner displays great sensitivity to the dangers of only one certain type, and it is not sensitive to other harms that are liable to be caused by the very fact of its implementation. The totality that its application involves does not leave room for a correct balancing between the interests – however important they be – that we are required to protect, and the harms and the violations that may well occur as a result of the implementation of the means in this manner. Implementation of the precautionary principle has, to a great extent, the capacity to divest the third sub-criterion of the requirement of proportionality – which is one of the foundational components of the rules of constitutional review in the Israeli legal system – of all content.

5.    For all the above reasons, I concur in the conclusion reached by my colleague President D. Beinisch and my colleagues Justices E. Levy, E. Arbel and S. Joubran, whereby the Law should be declared void.

Justice N. Hendel

Difficult constitutional decisions bring out the best in the work of the judge, and at the same time they expose the weakness of the judicial task. The reasoning in various opinions is rich and even personal in a positive sense. But decision-making is far from an exact science, and far from a world in which there is one correct, clear answer which has the power to persuade all those dealing with the case. Against this backdrop my position will be presented.

Violation of a Constitutional Right

1.    The preliminary question is whether the Citizenship Law, with its amendments (hereinafter: the amended Law) violates a right under Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. In my opinion, the answer is affirmative due to the combination of infringements of two rights: the right to realization of married life in Israel, and the right to equality.

First, I will comment that there is no constitutional right vested in each citizen to bring a foreigner into the borders of his state, even if he is married to that person. A state is entitled to set immigration law, and the hearts’ desire of its citizens cannot dictate policy in this area. This is so in general, and it is particularly so if the partner is a citizen or inhabitant of an enemy state or entity.

As for equality: when the court examines a violation of equality, it must also examine the practical aspects of the outcome, and whether there is clear, unjustified consequential discrimination. It will be stressed that consequential discrimination is not derived from the intention to discriminate. Take, for example, the present case. I do not believe that the purpose of the amended Law is to discriminate. The purpose is security-related. However, the consequence of the amended Law discriminates between the Jewish and the Arab citizens of the State. This consequence constitutes a constitutional violation. This is the cumulative power of the violation of the right to equality and the right to immigration of a partner for the purpose of marriage. To this is added the fact that the prohibition in the amended Law is sweeping, and it is not conditional upon an individual examination of the foreign partner.

In the overall assessment of the violation of the right of the Israeli partner to bring the foreign partner from the Area and of the lack of practical equality, I found that there is a constitutional violation that necessitates an examination of the amended Law according to the limitation clause.

Limitation Clause – Section 8 of the Basic Law

2.    The permit to violate a constitutional right includes several conditions: (a) by law; (b) befitting the values of the State of Israel; (c) enacted for a proper purpose; (d) and to an extent no greater than is required. The last test, that of proportionality, comprises three sub-tests: (1) the test of the rational connection; (2) the test of the means involving the least violation; (3) the test of proportionality in the strict sense. In my view and that of most of my colleagues, it is not difficult to determine that the first three conditions are met, and also the first two sub-tests of proportionality. The disagreement mainly boils down to the third sub-test.

The Test of Proportionality sensu stricto

In the framework of this test, the harm caused to the constitutional right must be weighed against the benefit to the public interest as a result of the violation. In my view, the constitutional right that is violated must first be positioned on the scale of constitutional rights, and the relevant public interest must be juxtaposed to other interests. Such “prioritization” of the rights and interests can assist the court in carrying out the task of constitutional balancing. This is similar to the approach in the United States, where it is customary to rank the constitutional rights on three levels for the purpose of determining the level of judicial scrutiny.

As I mentioned, the prohibition on bringing in a foreign partner who is an inhabitant of the Area, and establishing a family with this partner in Israel, together with the consequential discrimination against Israeli Arab citizens, entails a violation of a constitutional right. But this right, and its violation, is not ranked high on the scale of rights. As opposed to this, the public interest is state security. This interest is highly placed. It is interesting to note that the right to family life does not appear explicitly in the Basic Law, whereas the Law states expressly that “There shall be no violation of the life, body or dignity of any person as such.” From this one can learn that the protected public interest occupies a very high rank on the scale of values of the State of Israel.

4.    The outcome whereby an Israeli citizen who belongs to a particular national group will be prevented from bringing a foreign spouse into the State, without any detailed check of whether that person is dangerous, is harsh. This is one side of the coin. The other side is that concern about injuries to persons relates to a matter of certainty, or at least one of high probability. From the factual data that was submitted it emerges that the benefit deriving from the Law regarding reduction of the probability of future attacks is very considerable. It will be recalled that a “successful” attack is liable to cost the lives of dozens of Israeli citizens, and also those who are “only” badly or moderately injured pay an unbearable price. To this must be added the moral consideration that is cited in the Mishna in Tractate Sanhedrin (4:5), whereby “if any man has caused a single soul to perish ….[it is] as though he had caused a whole world to perish; and if any man saves alive a single soul … [it is] as though he had saved alive a whole world.”

As for violation of a constitutional right, and the consideration of proportionality, regard must be had to the exceptions in the amending Law. I will mention two of these. One is the exception relating to age: the sweeping prohibition is not applicable to a male inhabitant of the Area over the age of 35 years, and a female inhabitant over the age of 25 years. From the data that was presented in this case, it emerges that the age exception reduces the affected group by some 30%. The second  is connected to the Humanitarian Committee (sec. 3A1 of the amended Law). As I see it, the powers of the Committee and the discretion granted to it should be interpreted more widely than is done today. The two exceptions that I have mentioned – age and the Humanitarian Committee – do not cancel out the constitutional violation, but they blunt its intensity.

5.    Decisions on the narrow proportionality test are not all made of the same stuff. There are cases – and such is the case before us – in which the decision is difficult. The two competitors – the right that is violated and the public interest – tug mightily at each end of the decision rope. In these situations, there is a constitutional domain in which more than one answer is possible (similar to the margin of appreciation in the law of the European Union). Any law falling within this domain will be considered constitutional.

We are faced with a difficult case. The decision is a matter of degree. It is not surprising that this issue has twice been brought to court, and that each time, the outcome was determined by a majority of one justice in a bench of eleven justices. Of course, the existence of disagreements does not dictate a particular outcome. But here, ultimately, the difference in the opinions lies, in my opinion, in preferring to prevent the harm caused by the amended Law as opposed to preferring the marginal benefit of the amended Law. These disagreements, too, lead to the conclusion that this case falls within the parameters of constitutionality.

6.    Through this prism I considered the position of the interest of the defending Israel’s security in the ranking of public interests, and the position on the scale of constitutional rights of the constitutional violation with regard to the Israeli partner. I also examined the magnitude of security risk and its extent, as opposed to the damage caused to the basic rights, bearing in mind the exceptions in the amended Law. All this was executed against the backdrop of the factual web that was presented, with an awareness of the possible constitutional domain in this case. In short, my view is that declaring to law to be void is not warranted.

Summary

The amended Law was enacted as a temporary order, which was extended a dozen times. The passage of time, and the many extensions of the amended Law, do not, in my view, help the position of the State. The harsh climate accompanies us all year long, and has done so for a great many years. When we sit as the High Court of Justice, we are bound, in our judicial review, to watch the clock as well. My view is, as stated, that the Law should not be declared void. At the same time, the State would do well to formulate a law that deals with the subject of immigration in the present context and in general. According to the updated notice of the State counsel, this is being pursued energetically. In the event that no such new law is enacted, from the point of view of constitutional review it is to be expected, at the very least, that discussion of any extension of the amended Law will be comprehensive, thorough and substantive. Similarly, it is to be expected that the legislature will be attentive to the changing reality, in order to examine whether the violation of constitutional rights is still justified.

8.    In the final analysis, my view is that the petitions must be denied.

Deputy President E. Rivlin

The Issue in Dispute and the Role of the Court

1.    The petitions raise a question about the protection of human rights. The question concerns the imposition of statutory limitations on the right of non-resident foreigners to acquire citizenship by virtue of their marriage to citizens of a particular state, when such foreigners reside in an area hostile to that state. This question lies at the heart of a public dispute. The issue is complex, and the way in which it has been handled illustrates the way in which the Israeli legal system handles questions that spill over into the public and political debate.

2.    In practice, every legal system deals in its own way with the dilemma posed by a question of the type that was raised here. The way it approaches the question is a function of the political system, or the constitutional and social structure, and of the governmental culture. The core role of the constitutional court is to protect human rights, particularly minority rights or rights of other weak groups. This is not an easy task. In its formal sense, democracy is the rule of the majority. In its substantive sense, it is a regime in which minority rights, too, are protected. In order to fulfill its core function in a free society, i.e., the protection of basic rights,  in all legal systems the court must conserve its limited resources.

The resources available to the court are limited. Over two hundred years ago, Alexander Hamilton noted that the judiciary has no control over the “purse” and over the “sword”, hence its weakness. He attributed the weakness of the judiciary also to the fact that “it has no will of its own” – for it decides only those disputes that others bring before it, and it does not initiate decisions that are not based on a genuine conflict:

The Judiciary … has no influence over either the sword of the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will (The Federalist no. 78).

Because the judiciary has neither purse nor sword, nor a will of its own, the principal resource available to it is public trust. Descending into the public battlefield, when unnecessary, is liable to dissipate this precious resource. In the past, I have said that refraining from entering the arena of political dispute and showing deference to the political authorities in the appropriate cases is not intended to increase the power of those authorities, but to conserve the resources of the judiciary. This is the dilemma facing every constitutional court  and every court of administrative affairs. On the one hand there is a need for judicial and constitutional and administrative review – review that stands at the center of the work of the court – and on the other hand, there is a desire to refrain from entering the arena of public controversy, an entrance which is liable to use up resources available to the  court. We will illustrate this in one other constitutional system as well as in our system.

The United States: Doctrine of Non-Justiciability

4.    The Third Chapter of the United States Constitution limits federal jurisdiction to cases and controversies. This limitation, when accompanied by the rules of judicial prudence, has shaped the parameters of the standing of a person who brings a case before an American court; in other words, there must exist a personal interest that is likely to be resolved through litigation. The need for the existence of a personal interest is the outcome of the requirement that there be a harm that is not abstract or hypothetical – harm to the litigant who comes to court, and not someone else. To this are added other filters that together come under the aegis of the doctrine of non-justiciability. Justiciability is absent in cases which are not yet ripe for adjudication, or if the subject-matter is theoretical, and in all those cases that are termed “political questions”. Non-justiciability in some of these cases lies, at base, in the principle of separation of powers. Under the rule of lack of ripeness, the United States court will refrain from adjudicating an argument whose validity depends on a future development, which itself might well not eventuate as expected, or not happen at all (see e.g.: Texas v. United States  [11]). A potential violation of a right does not entitle one to relief. Another barrier is found in the doctrine of the theoretical subject, i.e., mootness, that directs the court not to adjudicate a hypothetical or academic dispute, where the judicial decision will not affect the rights of the parties to the process. There is also a lack of justiciability where the question is essentially a “political question”. Non-justiciability in “political questions” reflects a conception according to which questions which the judiciary has neither the tools nor the criteria to resolve. The United States Supreme Court has drawn up guidelines for examining whether a question is a political one with which the Court should not deal: where there is written constitutional provision assigning the matter to the political authority; where there are no obvious judicial criteria than can be applied in order to resolve the question; where the question in dispute cannot be resolved without deciding in advance on policy that is not within the discretion of the Court; where there is a clear and special need to abide by a political decision that has already been made; and where there is a potential for a multiplicity of conflicting decisions on the part of the various authorities on the very same question (Baker v. Carr [12]). Apart from the “political questions”, the United States Supreme Court defers to the political authorities in other matters that fall within their area of expertise: they do so out of recognition that not all matters were intended to pass beneath the rod of judicial discretion, and that there are matters which are better left to be decided by the elected authorities.

5.    One of these matters is that of immigration and entry into the United States; here, the doctrine of deference in the United states reached the peak of its application. It was decided that as a rule, deference in these matters is absolute, and the political powers are vested with plenary power (Jon Feere, “Plenary Power: Should Judges Control U.S. Immigration Policy”, Center for Immigration Studies, Feb. 2009). Thus, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court noted, in 2005 (Clark v. Suarez Martinez [13]) that Congress had the power to introduce legislation that protected the security of the State borders, in addition to the legislation enacted in 2001 (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA Patriot) Act of 2001).

This conception of matters of immigration was, inter alia, the outcome of the doctrine of the “political question”, namely, the refusal to adjudicate cases that involved determining policy that ought to be determined by the body that represents the public interest and which is accountable to the public. The connection between immigration and foreign relations, between immigration and national security, and between immigration and other subjects that involve the determination of policy, has formed the basis of non-intervention on the part of the courts. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court’s approach was served by considerations of institutional inability to make political decisions in the framework of immigration laws which by their nature are created by the political authorities. “Over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over the admission of aliens” said the US Supreme Court (Fiallo v. Bell [14]). When security considerations formed the basis for the decision to expel an alien from the United States, the American court refused to intervene, even though the person involved was married to an American citizen who had served in the United States Army. This was stated emphatically: an alien who wishes to enter this country cannot claim a right of entry. Permitting the entry of aliens into the territory of the United States is a privilege conferred by the sovereign on the United States government. This privilege is granted to an alien only in accordance with the conditions that the United States determines. It must be implemented in accordance with and by virtue of the process that is to be set by the United States (Knauff v. Shaughnessy [15]).

There in the United States too, however, and even on matters of immigration, the court does not entirely refuse to regulate the rules, and one can find cases in which the court abandoned the doctrine of plenary power vested in the authorities in those matters (see, e.g., Zadvydas v. Davis [16]).

6.    Our older sister – the American constitutional law system – experienced historical shifts that rocked the boat of case law this way and that, until it stabilized. American history presents us with a clear picture of the dilemma facing constitutional courts in every free legal system: the need to fulfill the core function – protection of human rights – and the need to recruit the necessary resources in order to overcome the difficulties presented by every political culture to the court that fulfills its core function. American history reflects the harsh consequences of Lochnerism – a case that became a concept in the wake of the decision in Lochner v. New York [17], in which the Supreme Court ruled that a New York State law that set an upper ceiling on the number of working hours of bakers was void in that it was unconstitutional. This was a protective labor law, and the judgment aroused widespread, almost universal, criticism as a symbol of excessive intervention in value-based matters, and in matters concerning the regulation of economic policy – in relation to which the court ought to have deferred to the statutory regulation.

7.    The effects of the Great Depression at the end of the 1920s and the beginning of the 1930s cast a dark shadow over the intervention of the courts in economic regulation of Congress, which sought, on its part, to heal the economy in the framework of the laws of the New Deal. During his second term of office, President Franklin Roosevelt, riding the wave of public criticism of the court, proposed the court packing plan, which was designed to cripple the court. The Lochner era came to an end: the new legislation, beginning in 1937, once again respected the choices of the legislature in the economic field, as long as they were supported by some sort of rational basis. Recognition was once again accorded to the broad power of both the various states and the Federal government to regulate economic matters.

8.    The end of the era of Lochnerist intervention was clearly manifest in the foundational decision in United States v. Carolene Products Co. [18]. However, at the very time that intervention in economic policy was terminated, and in the very same decision, the first signs of the renewed flowering of protection of basic human rights appeared. In a historical footnote included in that judgment (footnote 4), the US Court pointed out, albeit with the caution that was a product of its clipped power, that “it is possible that there would be a greater proclivity on its part” for constitutional judicial review, when at stake was a law that violated human rights, or a law that limited the ability of the political process to block unwanted legislation, or a law that discriminated against a discrete and insular minority. The Court formulated the two sides of the coin that was minted in that tempestuous period – respect for the authorities where this was due, and validating laws as long as they were reasonable and logical on the one hand, and on the other hand, simultaneously, a clear and courageous statement that deference would not apply to laws that violate basic rights or laws that discriminate against vulnerable minorities. The way in which the US court dealt with the dilemma of justiciability was to take one step back followed by a courageous step forward. In the foundational footnote that symbolized the beginning of the revival of the US court, the strong protection of freedom of expression, of liberty and equality, of privacy and of personal autonomy, was fashioned. The US court became a beacon from which the light of liberty shone forth.

Israel: On Governance and Accountability

9.    The various legal systems, we said, struggle with the need to fulfill the core function of the court in the framework of the realities in which they operate – each in its own way. The Israeli legal system adopted a path that was different from that chosen by the United States. The American system adopted a rigid approach with respect to the intervention of the courts in matters that were the subject of public controversy; our system chose a different approach due to the reality in which the Israeli courts operate. This reality is affected by legislative failures and by a lack of governance on the part of the executive authority, resulting in an absence of statutory regulation of essential subjects, or acceptance of partial or temporary legislative regulation – as attested to by the Law with which we are dealing, with all its flaws.

In a parliamentary system of government of the Israeli type, the government (the executive) governs by way of application of the normative rules that are fashioned by the parliament. Normally, it is within the power of the executive authority to initiate legislative processes, and even to influence them by means of the support of the majority it enjoys in the legislature. This is governance. But governance has a price. He who exercises power bears responsibility for his actions. He who has sovereignty in the exercise of his powers by virtue of the law assumes accountability vis-à-vis the public. Refraining from making executive and legislative decisions on substantive questions detracts from governance, and it represents a certain denial of accountability. Moreover, transferring the onus of regulating matters that are the responsibility of the executive and the legislative branches to the judiciary imposes upon the latter the consequences of the weakness of the first two. Contrary to what many think, such a choice in fact weakens the judicial authority.

10.  Civilized countries have a clear, comprehensive policy of immigration and of nationalization. In many states, the establishment of norms that regulate the entry of foreigners was intended to ensure that such entry would not impose an economic and security burden upon the citizens and inhabitants, that it would not be detrimental to their health nor to the welfare of the public and its way of life. This is when times are normal.

In times of war or of armed struggle, the nations of the world limit the entry of enemy nationals into the state. These limitations also apply to immigration for the purpose of marriage, and they are recognized by law. Even where there are no security considerations, states limit immigration for the purpose of marriage. European states are constantly tightening conditions for immigration into their territory for demographic reasons. The European Court of Human Rights gave support to the rights of these states to limit matrimonial immigration into their territory. The rules of International law do not recognize a right of immigration for the purpose of matrimony, and they do not impose an obligation upon states to guarantee family reunification in their territory.

11.  And in Israel: instead of a normative, principled and comprehensive regulation of immigration policy, to this day we have bits of arrangements. Temporary orders, made up of assorted scraps, are not an alternative to a comprehensive normative arrangement. The Temporary Order in the present case, too, changes from one moment to the next. Over the years, exceptions and reservations have been inserted into the preliminary prohibition on granting the right of entry and status to an inhabitant of the Area, or to a citizen or inhabitant of an enemy state specified in the Law, most of which were designed to mitigate the prohibition. The absence of a comprehensive legislative arrangement on matters of immigration has led to a situation in which the questions that required comprehensive resolution have once again been laid piecemeal at our door, and we are required to decide once more the question of whether a “temporary order” will remain in force.

The statutory vacuum in the Israel reality forced the Court to depart from the core judicial function and to touch upon questions that are the subject of a heated public controversy. This distancing, which is the result of constraints placed on the courts in Israel, made it necessary to replace doctrinal non-justiciability, which is familiar to us from other legal systems, with discretionary non-justiciability. The doctrine of justiciability in its classic formulation became more moderate, but the logic on which the doctrine was based did not disappear, and it has always formed the basis of the judgments of the Supreme Court. We do not dismiss out of hand questions that are at a remove from the core judicial function – constitutional or administrative – but we do not ignore the need of the Court to choose, from amongst all the issues that are laid at its doorstep, those issues which call for discussion in the existing social and political reality. The further we draw away from the constitutional core, the more we are liable to be asked to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for the political branches. The Court itself determines the parameters of justiciability, as well as the parameters of intervention in the actions of the political authorities. Where the Court is confronted with the question of whether to delve deeply into political, social and economic questions, it is expected to act in accordance with the best rules of deference. Considerations of non-justiciability, which in Israel, as we have said, are differentiated from an independent doctrine of non-justiciability, due to the constitutional structure and the problem of governance, find expression in the arena of deference. Thus, for example, the arena of reasonability outlines the arena in which the administrative authority is authorized to make decisions, according to its discretion. The arena of reasonability is influenced, on its part, by the arena of deference.

Between Deference and Judicial Review: Conservation of Resources for the Sake of Protection of Human Rights

12.  As stated, the resources available to the court, and primarily, public trust, are precious and limited. The court must store as much of them as it can, and refrain from “wasting them”, where possible and appropriate. There will be a day when it will have need of them, when it is called upon to protect the human rights of Israel’s citizens, and primarily, the citizens who belong to the weaker sectors. It needs them in order to protect unpopular views and the right to express them; it needs them in order to ensure liberty; it needs them to ensure the right to equality. It needs them when it is required to protect the minority, the weak and the poor. It must use its strength and power in order to afford unreserved protection of liberty. Deference towards those subjects that are at the heart of political endeavor is in no way intended to detract from judicial review of the court. “Deference” cannot detract from constitutional review: it is designed to secure the resources  necessary for its existence. “Deference” does not mean denial of responsibility; deference is not the withholding of an opinion. On the contrary: it is a condition of strong constitutional review. Indeed, the Court’s abstention from entertaining and deciding on certain subjects is liable to be perceived as a handicap and a weakness. In reality, in this way the courts defend themselves by means of filtering mechanisms. Through these mechanisms, the courts can refrain from dealing with matters which they ought not to be deciding. This is a privilege accorded to the courts, and it is this that conserves their strength and their resources. Thus their accountability retains its position: in the court of the political authorities.

13.  In its protection of human rights, judicial review must be, in the words of Justice Brennan in another context, “fearless, vigorous and uninhibited” (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan [19]. The arena of deference that we designate for the activities of the other authorities will take into account our fundamental constitutional principles and our conception of the balance between the relevant considerations regarding the exercise of judicial review. The special importance of judicial review in those cases in which fundamental human rights are at issue should be recognized. Here it is important for judicial review to utilize the full extent of its power and ability. It will have this ability if it succeeds in refraining from dispersing its legal and social resources that are nurtured by public trust where the area of deference widens.

The Question in Dispute

14.  The issue to be decided here today is of the kind that lies at the core of the judicial function due to the fact that it gives rise to questions of protection of human rights, but at the same time, due to the legislative omission, it touches upon a sharp public controversy and political debate. Our decision will be made on the basis of the rules of constitutional review, while having regard to the principles of deference.

In the petitions before us the question of protection of human rights arises. The quest for equality provides a backdrop to the petitions. Another basic right also underlies the petitions, i.e., the right to family life. There is no doubt that imposing restrictions on immigration in some way violates these basic rights. True, this violation is not in itself directed at Israeli citizens. It violates the basic rights of Israeli citizens only where the realization of their right is conditional upon granting a right to foreigners who reside in radical enemy states, such as Iran or Syria, or to foreigners who live in areas in which intense terrorist activity, targeted at Israeli citizens, occurs and is based. However, even a violation that is not directed, from the outset, at the basic rights of Israeli citizens, justifies constitutional review as long as it exists. The protection of constitutional basic rights is the very heart and the purpose of the authority to exercise judicial review. That is its function. It is the violation of human rights that justifies the examination of the constitutionality of the contents of the Citizenship Law.

The Constitutional Right

15.  I have already expressed my opinion that the constitutional question cannot be divested of the reality in which it is cloaked. It cannot be placed in a world that does not exist – on another planet. The constitutional question is adjudicated here and now – in a state that is hurting, struggling to maintain its existence on a strip of land that is ablaze, a state which tries to avoid becoming “another planet”.[1] The reality is a comprehensive one, for which it is difficult to set analytical boundaries, just as there is no place to draw an analytical, artificial distinction between the case of an Israeli partner who wishes to marry and that of the foreigner whom s/he wishes to marry. The right of the Israeli partner affects a particular segment of the right – a segment in which the foreign spouse is a partner; we cannot close our eyes to the identity of the foreigner, to the political entity to which he or she belongs, to the identity of the elected leaders of that entity and to the circumstances in which the matter is being adjudicated. Since the hearing in the previous petition, the Hamas Organization has taken control of some of the Territories. This reality is a true one, and it must be taken into consideration when, in the framework of the constitutional balance, we are called upon to decide on the constitutionality of the restrictions that are placed on basic rights.

16.  There is no doubt that the Citizenship Law affects the possibility of full realization of the constitutional right to family life and the constitutional right to equality. It does not negate these rights. It detracts from their full scope. The Law does not prevent the Israeli spouse from marrying a partner from the Area; neither does it prevent the Israeli spouse from realizing the right to family life in the Area, or in any other place outside of Israel. However, it detracts from the right of the Israeli spouse to establish the family unit within the borders of Israel in those cases in which the foreign spouse is an inhabitant of the Area specified in the Law before us, and belongs to one of those groups whose entry from the Area into Israel the Minister of the Interior was empowered to prevent. The result of this is also a violation of equality, in that most of the Israeli spouses who marry inhabitants of this Area are Arab Israelis.

17.  Moreover, the defined range of human rights should not be contracted in times of emergency. Neither should different balancing criteria be adopted in difficult periods. The Basic Laws do not recognize two systems of laws, one of which applies in times of calm and the other, in times of emergency. Israeli constitutional law has a uniform approach to human dignity and liberty both in times of peace and in times of danger. The statement of Justice Holmes in the case of Schenck v. United States([20]), according to which things that are said in times of peace may sometimes not be said in times of war, is not understood as a call to deviate from the constitutional criteria themselves in times of emergency. This applies to freedom of expression, and to other basic rights. The criteria on the basis of which we examine restrictions on human rights are uniform at all times. The criteria are identical. But we should recall that their implementation is affected by the factual situation.

The question which has returned to our doorstep today is, therefore, whether the conditions that permit a violation of the basic rights that we have discussed have been met.

The Conditions for Detracting from a Constitutional Right

18.  The limitation clause of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty sets four conditions for violating a constitutional right: the violation of the basic right must be by law or according to a law; the law must befit the values of the State of Israel; it must be enacted for a proper purpose; and its violation of the right must be to an extent no greater than required. Most agree that the first and second conditions are met here. The dispute turns on the question of whether the third and fourth conditions are met, i.e., if the Law was enacted for a proper purpose and if its violation of constitutional rights is greater than necessary. The first of these conditions deals with the purpose, and the other – with the appropriate means of realizing this purpose.

It seems to me that there can also be no dispute that the Law was enacted for a proper purpose. The purpose of the Law in this case is security-related, and it is to reduce, insofar as possible, the security risk posed by the foreign spouses who enter Israel. At the basis of the legislation lay the security concern about involvement in terrorist activity on the part of the Palestinian spouses, who hold Israeli identity cards by virtue of their marriage to Israeli partners. The concern is about abuse of this status in Israel – a status which allows for free movement between the area of the Palestinian Authority and Israel. History shows that this is not a baseless concern. This purpose is a proper one.

The fourth condition listed in the limitation clause requires that the violation of the right be no greater than is necessary. It is not enough that the purpose is proper: the means that are adopted for its realization must also be proper, i.e., proportional. The words “to an extent no greater than is necessary” have been interpreted in Israeli case law, following foreign case law, as implying three sub-criteria: that of suitability (the rational connection); that of necessity (the means which involves the least violation); and that of proportionality. The first sub-criterion requires the existence of a rational connection between the (proper) purpose and the means selected for its realization. This is the criterion of common sense and of life experience. From amongst the  means that create the rational connection between the proper purpose and the means, the means which involves the least violation should be chosen – that is the second sub-criterion. The third sub-criterion is that of overall balance. It looks at whether the relationship between the benefit derived from achieving the (proper) purpose – prevention of risk – and the damage caused (as a result of the violation of the constitutional rights  achieves a proper balance between the needs of the general population and the harm to the individual.

The third sub-criterion (of the three sub-conditions of the fourth condition – the requirement of proportionality) i.e., the criterion of relativity, imposes the task of striking the balance on the court. This balance is not detached from the examination conducted by the court in the framework of the first two sub-criteria. Moreover, in many cases, once it has been proven that there is a rational connection between the purpose of the law and the means it selected (the first sub-criteria), and once the Court is convinced that the purpose of the law cannot be achieved, as it stands, by recourse to less harmful means (the second sub-criterion), it is a short road to the conclusion that the proper overall balance is achieved as well (the third sub-criterion). However, a positive decision in relation to the first two criteria often led to a rapid decision on the question of the third sub-criterion (see, e.g., R. v. Keegstra [1990] 3 S.C.R. 69; McKinney v. University of Guelph [1990 3 S.C.R. 229). This natural channel led some to the conclusion that the third sub-criterion is in fact a superfluous stage in the constitutional examination.

I believe that there is no room for a sweeping conclusion that if the first two sub-criteria are satisfied, the question of the existence of the condition of proportionality will necessarily be answered affirmatively. Indeed, the third sub-criterion should not be isolated from the other two; the response to each of these has an understandable effect on the others. However, the importance of the last criterion should not be underestimated, just as the importance of each of the sub-criteria in itself should not be inflated. These sub-criteria should be implemented, with sensitivity being shown to the circumstances of each case  (Libman v. Attorney General of Quebec [23]). This is not a matter of guidelines alone. The sub-criteria, as adopted, outline the way in which judicial review should be exercised with respect to the condition of proportionality, and in certain senses, they also set the parameters of the court’s competence. They allow for a uniform, sophisticated examination of the question of whether the condition of proportionality has been met. The Court will, therefore, refrain from applying the proportionality criteria in a mechanical or literal manner when it wishes to declare the law invalid.

The criteria of proportionality come together to examine the relationship between the cost of the harm to the protected right and the expected utility embodied in the proper purpose of the law – prevention of a security risk, or if you will, in the logical formulation coined by Learned Hand: an examination of the relationship between the cost of the legislation (C) and the probability (P) of injury (L) without it. In the present case, even if the probability of damage is low, its magnitude – both physical and spiritual harm – is almost insurmountable.

19.  In the present case, the first two sub-criteria of the fourth condition were met with respect to the condition of proportionality. First, there is a rational connection between the purpose of the Law and the means it selected. The prohibition on the entry of foreign spouses to Israel prevents the risk that they present. The fact that it was allegedly possible to realize the purpose of the Law by using other means that were not adopted does not necessarily indicate that the means that was selected is not rational.

With respect to the second sub-criterion, too, it would seem to be generally agreed that the individual examination causes less harm. However, it is also clear that the individual examination of those who seek to settle in Israel does not realize the purpose of the Law to the same extent as a blanket prohibition on their entry. “In light of the central value of human life that the Law seeks to protect, it is clear that a sweeping prohibition will always be more effective – from the point of view of realization of the purpose of reducing the security risk as much as possible – than the individual examination (President Barak in the first petition).

Still to be decided, therefore, is the question concerning the third sub-criterion of the condition of proportionality – that of relativity, i.e., the question of sensu stricto proportionality: is the relationship between the benefit derived from achieving the proper purpose of the Law and the harm caused by it proportional? This examination should be carried out against the background of the accepted distinction between interest and right.

Interest as opposed to Right

20.  The criterion of balance between the means adopted and the purpose underlying the law is derived from the question of the definition of the value for the sake of which the constitutional right is violated: is it a private right or a public right? The case law, even that which preceded the Basic Law, created a distinction between the criterion of vertical balance (between a right and a public interest) and the criterion of horizontal balance (between rights of equal weight). However this distinction sometimes presents a difficulty, stemming from the artificiality that often lies in the definition of the public interest as distinct from the right of the individual.  [The] public, which has an interest, is comprised of individuals.  And when the public interest is dissected into its components, aggregate individual rights are exposed. Thus, for example, when we are dealing with the security of the public – a public interest in our language – we are talking about nothing other than the right to life and to bodily integrity of each member of the public. This categorization is likely, however, in this case, to have implications for the balance on which the requirement of proportionality is based.

21.  The value of public security normally assumes an abstract form; the tendency is to view it as a non-specific public interest. Often, the nature of the anticipated harm to public security is not tangible. A person’s right to life, on the other hand, is a concrete, tangible right. It is almost an ultimate right; it is the right of people to life – and every one of these people is a world in himself. It is designed to protect people as individuals. As we have said, the distinction between  the two – the interest and the right – is sometimes difficult, as we see from the present case. Apparently, we are dealing with a value in the category of interest – public interest – but in this case, the image of the public become sharper and the danger becomes focused. We are not looking at an abstract public, but at the faces of those who are liable to be hurt in the next terror attack. We can envision the horror of the harm. This is not the abstract concern for public welfare that we have encountered in previous cases. Public security here means the actual right to life, and this is what the Law seeks to protect. The attack that the Law seeks to prevent is directed at certain people, individuals, Moslems, Jews, Christians and Buddhists, who live with us. These people – each and every one of them – have a vested right to life. They have not appeared physically before us today because no one knows what the future holds for him. But their right stands before us here and now.

The Overall Balance

22.  In the framework of the previous petition, there was no dispute concerning the benefit of the disputed legislation, and it was agreed by the majority of my colleagues that “detailed examination of those who belong to those population groups that have a proven potential for posing risks to security and to life, is indeed likely to reduce the harm to the ability to establish family life in Israel, but as opposed to this it will not ensure in an appropriate manner the security of the public.” It has been proven in the past that terrorist organizations will recruit a spouse who is an inhabitant of the Area to their ranks only after that spouse has acquired a permit allowing him/her to enter Israel and to move about freely. In the task of balancing between reducing the carnage and ensuring life on the one hand, and the harm caused to some Israeli citizens who wish to live with foreign spouses in Israel – the benefit [of the Law] exceeds the damage.

The limitation imposed in the Temporary Order does not apply, ab initio, to marriage to Palestinians who live in states which are no longer enemy states – Egypt and Jordan. It applies to those who live in the Area, from which enemy action emerges, or nationals of states that advocate incessantly for the destruction of Israel. In the meantime, additional concessions have been introduced into the Law for those who seek to immigrate to Israel for the purpose of marriage. On our recommendation, a provision was also added to the Law to allow for approving an entry permit in specific cases in which weighty humanitarian reasons justify so doing. The benefit therefore prevails, in the overall balance, over the damage in the legislation. Damage of another type is not that which is found in the existing legislation, but which lies in the lack of a responsible, serious and complete regulation of the matter of immigration to Israel. In the absence of an arrangement, the Temporary Order was returned to us for resolution. In an overall and responsible balance, we cannot void it and leave, in its place, a dangerous legislative vacuum which no-one knows when it will be filled.

My opinion, therefore, is that the petitions must be denied.

Decided as per the majority opinions of Deputy President E. Rivlin and Justices A. Grunis, M. Naor, E. Rubinstein, H. Melcer and N. Hendel; as against the dissenting opinions of President D. Beinisch and Justices: E.E. Levy, E. Arbel, S. Joubran and E. Hayut, to cancel the order nisi issued by the Court and to deny the petitions, with no order for costs.

16 Tevet 5772

January 11, 2012

The Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice

HCJ 3856/11

Before:                                                The Honorable Deputy President M. Naor                                                                 The Honorable Justice E. Arbel                                                                                  The Honorable Justice N. Solberg

The Petitioner:                        Anonymous

v e r s u s

The Respondents:                   1.       The Supreme Sharia Court of Appeals

                                                      2.       The Sharia Court in Tayibe

                                                      3.       Anonymous

The Parties Requesting

to Join as amici curiae:           1.       "Kayan" – Feminist Organization

                   2.       The Concord Research Center for Integration of International Law in Israel

Petition to Grant an Order Nisi

Date of Session:                                           13^th of Kislev, 5773 (November 27, 2012)

On behalf of the Petitioner:                Adv. V. Herzberg, Adv. T Mudlij

On behalf of Respondents 1-2:           Adv. A. Avzek

On behalf of Respondent 3:                Adv. A. Natur

On behalf of Party 1 requesting

to join as amicus curiae:                      Adv. S. Batshon

On behalf of Party 2 requesting

to join as amicus curiae:                      Adv. F. Raday

On behalf of the Attorney General:    Adv. D. Bricksman

J U D G M E N T

Justice E. Arbel:

Before us is a petition against the decision of the Sharia Court of Appeals ruling it is impossible to appoint a female arbitrator in a divorce proceeding before the court.

Background and Review of the Proceedings

1.The Petitioner and Respondent 3 (hereinafter: the “Respondent”) are Muslim Israeli citizens who are married to each other. A dispute erupted between the two, which led to various proceedings held in civil courts, including motions for protective orders, alimony actions and more. At the same time, on April 23, 2009, the Respondent filed an “Arbitration Claim” with the Sharia Court in Tayibe. There, the Petitioner claimed that the claim was filed in bad faith since the Respondent intended to divorce. Despite this, the court accepted the Respondent’s petition and on November 1, 2010, instructed that each party appoint an arbitrator on its behalf pursuant to Sections 130 and 131 of the Ottoman Family Law (hereinafter: the “Family Law”). On January 17, 2011, the Petitioner filed a notice to the Sharia court regarding the appointment of Hajjah Rudina Amsha from Tayibe as the arbitrator on her behalf.

2.On January 18, 2011, the Sharia Court ruled that: “This court sees that the religious scholars stipulated that the arbitrators must be men, according to the Maliki, Hanbali and Shafi schools of thought…”. Later the court required the Petitioner to appoint a male arbitrator. The Petitioner appealed this decision to the Sharia Court of Appeals. On April 5, 2011, the court denied the appeal. It was ruled that Section 130 of the Family Law, which is the binding law in Sharia courts in Israel, is based on the Maliki interpretation. Since the Maliki required that arbitrators be men, it is impossible to appoint women as arbitrators. Following the judgment, the Sharia Court in Tayibe decided again that the Petitioner must appoint an arbitrator on her behalf within a week. After the Petitioner did not appoint an arbitrator on her behalf, the court appointed two male arbitrators on its behalf on May 11, 2011. At the same time, this petition was filed. Notably, on June 2, 2011, this Court (Honorable Justice Meltzer) granted the Petitioner an interim order prohibiting the arbitrators appointed by the Sharia court from issuing any decisions in the entire matter handed over to their care, until another decision in the petition.

3.Following a hearing we held on July 13, 2011, we decided to issue an order nisi, and to have the Attorney General file its position on the matter. After receiving the positions of the parties, we held an additional hearing on May 7, 2012, in which we decided that the Sharia Court of Appeals should give a detailed and reasoned decision on the parties’ arguments, and particularly regarding the applicability of the Equal Rights for Women Act, 5711-1951 (hereinafter: the “Equal Rights for Women Act” or the “Act”). Such judgment was indeed handed down and provided to this Court on August 9, 2012, whose main points we shall address immediately. On November 27, 2012, we held a final hearing in the petition and heard the parties’ arguments. In order to complete the picture, it shall be noted that two organizations filed motions to join the petition as amici curiae“Kayan”–Feminist Organization (hereinafter: the “Kayan Organization”), and the second is the Concord Research Center for Integration of International Law in Israel (hereinafter: the “Concord Center”). Following these proceedings, it is now time to deliver our decision in the petition.

The Sharia Court of Appeals’ Judgment

4.As mentioned, following our decision, a reasoned judgment in the matter was given by the Sharia Court of Appeals on June 18, 2012. The Court stated that first the question of which school of thought was chosen by the Ottoman legislator when legislating Section 130 of the law, which binds the Sharia courts in Israel, must be addressed. The Court clarified that according to the Maliki school of thought, the arbitrators serve as a kind of Qadi, and not as representatives of the parties. Their authority is to reconcile the couple or divorce them from each other even without the couple’s consent. In contrast, according to the Hanafi, Shafi and Hanbali schools of thought, the arbitrators’ authority ends with delivering a report to the Qadi who is the one who performs the divorce according to the arbitrators’ report, and the arbitrators do not have authority to perform the divorce unless they have been permitted to do so. The Court further ruled that in Section 130 of the law, the Ottoman legislator relied on the Maliki's opinion, as the language of the section authorizes the arbitrators to dissolve the marriage and provides that the arbitrators’ judgment will be final. The court also relied on the explanatory notes to the Family Law that explicitly referred to the Maliki school of thought.

5.The Court stated that the Sharia courts indeed operate pursuant to this principle when implementing Section 130 of the Family Law, and it has been ruled that the act of the panel of arbitrators is a judicial act that creates a judgment similar to the act of a Qadi. The Qadi's only role is to confirm whether the arbitrators’ report is consistent with the law, and if not, to void it. It has been ruled that the Qadi may intervene in the scope of the dowry (mahr) given to the women if he found that the arbitrators unjustifiably reduced it, however this is only the case for a monetary matter and where the court has tools to intervene, in the absence of a Sharia reason for the reduction. It has been ruled that the purpose of the intervention is to prevent the prolonging of the litigation between the parties. In contrast, the court cannot intervene in other matters of the arbitrators’ report since the arbitrators are the ones who heard the couple’s arguments based upon which they reached their conclusions. In summary, the Sharia Court of Appeals rules that “the arbitrators, pursuant to Section 130 of the law, are Qadis and not representatives, and they are the ones who rule regarding the dissolution of a marriage, and the Qadi’s authority is to confirm their ruling.”

6.The Court stated that the law does not clarify the terms and characteristics required of the arbitrator, and therefore, it is necessary to turn to the customary opinion in the Maliki school of thought to clarify such terms. According to this school of thought, the arbitrators must be men. The court clarifies that the religious scholars that viewed arbitrators as representatives permitted women to be arbitrators, while the religious scholars that viewed arbitrators as Qadis did not permit women to be arbitrators. The Court further noted that according to the Hanafi school of thought a woman can also be a Qadi.

7.As for the Equal Rights for Women Act, the court rules that both of the Act’s exceptions apply: the exception regarding laws permitting or prohibiting marriage and the exception regarding appointing a person to a religious position. The Court emphasized that the arbitrators’ judgment has Sharia implications that stem from the dissolution judgment, which is final and binding, and therefore the Equal Rights for Women Act should not be applied to the appointment of arbitrators. The Court rejected the argument that the Family Law is a civil law and ruled that this law is the codification of Sharia laws that includes laws regarding marriage and divorce that were taken from various schools of thought. The Court also stated that at hand is a religious lex specialis that prevails over the provisions of the Mejelle which is legi generali. The Court cautioned that adopting a different school of thought would harm women, since according to other schools of thought the arbitrator cannot perform a divorce without the husband’s consent, while the Maliki school of thought is the only one that applies a cause of action for dissolving a marriage without the husband’s consent.

The Petitioner’s Arguments

8.The Petitioner’s attorney claims that Section 130 of the Family Law does not prohibit the appointment of a female arbitrator. According to him, we are concerned with a statue of a civil governing body within the codification process and reforms made during the Ottoman Empire. The Family Law was intended to introduce some into the existing rules and also to reform the legislation while adopting and integrating opinions from various schools of thought and creating a single body of binding legislation. It follows, as argued, that the law is to be interpreted similarly to other civil laws, rather than according to interpretations that were customary among the religious scholars in the period preceding the law’s legislation. It is further argued that the Ottoman legislature did not adopt the Maliki interpretation across the board and allowed itself to prescribe norms that diverge from this school of thought. For example, it is argued that the idea the law established, whereby the authority to dissolve the relationship is granted to the Qadi and not the arbitrators, deviates from Maliki law, as does the Qadi’s authority to appoint a third deciding arbitrator. The Petitioner’s attorney also refers to religious institutions in Muslim countries, such as Jordan, Egypt and Morocco, and even in the Palestinian Authority, where women were appointed in recent years to serve in the position of Qadis. The Petitioner’s attorney claims that according to the civil interpretation, Section 130 of the law is to be interpreted as allowing the appointment of a male or female arbitrator, based also on comparison with the provisions of the Mejelle, which deal with arbitration and grant the parties the freedom to choose the arbitrator acceptable to them.

9.The Petitioner’s attorney further claims that the Sharia court’s decisions are to be reversed as they are contrary to the Equal Rights for Women Act. According to the attorney, the Petitioner’s right to be heard (audi alteram partem) was impaired as her arguments regarding the appointment of the female arbitrator were not heard at all before the decisions of the Sharia courts were handed down.

10.In the supplementary arguments by the Petitioner, following the Sharia court giving its supplementary judgment, her attorney repeated the argument that the interpretation of Section 130 of the law must be separated from the Maliki school of thought and the law must be treated as an independent and modern statute. According to him, the Sharia courts have also not necessarily adhered to the Maliki school of thought in interpreting the law and that it has been ruled many times that the court has the authority to intervene and revoke the arbitrators’ judgment. He further argues that the Mejelle is based on the Hanafi school of thought and that that is how the residents of the country conducted themselves for several years, and therefore the rules of the Maliki school of thought should not be imposed upon them now. He states that no specific characteristics are required of the arbitrators other than them being acceptable to the parties.

The Respondent’s Arguments

11.The Respondent’s attorney claims first that the Petitioner’s right to be heard was not impaired since all her arguments were reviewed in writing before the Sharia Court of Appeals, which is not required to conduct oral hearings. As for Section 130 of the Family Law, he argues that this is part of the material-judicial-religious law that is based on the Quran. He presents references that the arbitrator is a judge of sorts who is somewhat inferior to a Qadi. The arbitrators’ authority to listen to the parties’ arguments, and even to rule on a divorce, indicates, so it is argued, their judicial position. The arbitrators’ authorities go to dissolving the relationship between the couple, and therefore their actions relate to the hard core of the laws of divorce. The Respondent’s attorney further states that the Court must accept the arbitrators’ judgment as long as it is not flawed. His conclusion is, therefore, that this is a religious judicial position that falls within the exceptions of the Equal Rights for Women Act. The Respondent’s attorney agrees that the Family Law was indeed legislated primarily based on the Hanafi school of thought, but it includes sections, such as Section 130, which were legislated based on the Maliki school of thought. Furthermore, he argues that the Court is authorized to appoint arbitrators without granting the parties the option of choosing arbitrators on their behalf. Finally, the attorney argues that this is not a case for the High Court of Justice to intervene.

12.In relating to the Sharia Court of Appeals’ supplementary judgment, the Respondent’s attorney reiterates his arguments and supports substance of the supplementary judgment. According to him, the Family Law is not a civil law, and contrary to the Mejelle, it is directly based on the Quran, which is a religious law. It is a lex specialis that prevails over the legi generali of the Mejelle. It is also argued that one must distinguish between arbitration under the Mejelle and arbitration under the Family Law. Arbitration under the Mejelle is pursuant to the parties’ desire and at their choice, while arbitration under the Family Law is mandatory by law and it is in fact the Qadi who is authorized to appoint. He further mentions that according to the Maliki school of thought, the arbitrators must be male.

The Position of the Attorney General

13.At our request, the Attorney General presented its position that the Family Law is a civil law that was legislated based on Sharia Law. During the Ottoman period it was applied to all of the subjects of the Empire irrespective of their religion, but since 1919 this law binds only the Sharia courts. The Family Law was primarily legislated based on the Hanafi school of thought, and it is turned to only upon a lacuna in the law. However, there are sections that were legislated based on other schools of thought, including Section 130, which is based on the Maliki school of thought. According to the Attorney General, the adoption of the Maliki school of thought in this context was apparently meant to benefit women, since this school of thought allows a woman to separate from her husband in broader circumstances and causes of action than the other schools of thought. According to this school of thought, the arbitrators must try to reconcile the couple that is in conflict, but should their attempts be unsuccessful, they have the power to separate the couple even without their consent. The arbitrators are further authorized to determine the sum of the dowry that the husband must pay the wife, according to the degree of fault by each party. The Attorney General clarifies that according to the Maliki school of thought the arbitrators are Qadis for all intents and purposes, and therefore, their ruling is final and binds the Qadi who is not authorized to intervene therein. Additionally, the arbitrator must be a man. However, there are schools of thought which relate to the arbitrators as representatives and allow a woman to be appointed to this position.

14.The Attorney General examines the two exceptions of the Equal Rights for Women Act. As for the exception regarding laws permitting or prohibiting marriage and divorce, the Attorney claims that there is doubt whether this exception applies. Indeed, according to the Maliki school of thought the arbitrators are authorized to dissolve the marriage, however, on the other hand it is not actual laws of divorce that are at hand, but rather the identity of those authorized to determine the divorce. According to the Attorney, it is doubtful whether the exception was meant to apply also to those authorized to implement the marriage and divorce laws. As for the exception regarding the appointment of a religious position pursuant to religious law, the Attorney General claims that according to the Maliki school of thought arbitrators have a somewhat judicial position that requires Sharia education. However he notes that this Court has ruled in the past that the arbitrators’ decision is not final and their decision is subject to the confirmation of the Sharia court, in which the court is also authorized to intervene. The Attorney General notes that the Sharia courts indeed do so de facto, similarly to the Hanafi school of thought. According to the Attorney General, these figures allegedly indicate that the exception does not apply to the appointment of the arbitrators. However, the Attorney General believes the exception also applies to religious positions that are not judicial. Since the position of the arbitrator was created by virtue of the Muslim religious law, it appears that the exception in the Equal Rights for Women Act does apply. The Attorney General adds that the Family Law grounds religious laws even if it was made by the Ottoman legislator which applied the law to all the subjects of the Empire.

The Position of the “Kayan” Organization

15.The "Kayan" organization emphasizes that the decisions of the Sharia court constitute an ultra vires act since they are contrary to the principle of equality and to the Equal Rights for Women Act. As for the exception regarding the appointment of a religious position according to religious law, the organization argues that it is to be interpreted narrowly, so that it shall only apply to actual religious or judicial positions. It is further argued that the arbitrator’s position is not a judicial or religious position and therefore does not fall within this exception. According to the provisions of the Family Law and according to the customary practice of Sharia courts, the arbitrators have the status of representatives of the parties and their recommendations are subject to the court’s confirmation. It follows that this is not a judicial position. According to the organization, these arguments were already accepted and ruled in the past, by this Court. The organization further adds that according to Sharia law and customary practice, the arbitrator can be any person whom either party chooses to appoint and that there are no criteria for such choice. The arbitrators can even be relatives of the couple. It is further argued that it is obvious that a relative, who lacks objectivity and independence in performing his duties, cannot accept a judicial position. Additionally, the Qadi is the one with the authority to confirm the marriage or to declare a separation between the parties. Scholars indicate that the Sharia court has deviated from the Maliki school of thought in all that relates to the roles of the arbitrator and has ruled that the court can reject the arbitrator’s judgment.

The “Kayan” organization further clarifies that it is its position that the arbitrator is not a religious position. There are no criteria for appointing an arbitrator, who may also be a relative, which indicates this is not a religious position. At issue, so it is argued, is a familial-social role that is intended to reconcile the couple. It also states that the Family Law is a civil law and argues that in any event the interpretation that minimizes the violation of the principle of equality should be chosen.

16.As for the exception relating to laws permitting or prohibiting marriage and divorce, the “Kayan” organization argues that since the arbitrator does not fulfill a judicial or religious position, and since the court is the one that rules on the divorce claim as it is permitted to reject the arbitrators’ recommendation, then this is not a matter of violating laws permitting or prohibiting divorce. The arbitrator has limited discretion that amounts to examining the fault of each of the parties and making a recommendation in the matter of the dowry.

17.In general, the “Kayan” organization further argues that preventing the appointment of a woman to the position of an arbitrator in a Sharia court critically violates women’s rights to dignity. It emphasizes that there is no relevant difference between men and women in terms of this position, and therefore, any distinction between them is improper. Furthermore, according to the organization, the appointment of women as arbitrators in necessary in order to realize women litigators’ right to self-expression, and so that they may have an arbitrator on their behalf who would listen to their inner-most feelings in such personal and sensitive matters, who would serve as a voice and a mouthpiece to the woman. Doing so would, in fact, prevent a double infringement, both to the arbitrating women and to the litigating women. Preventing the appointment of a woman as an arbitrator prejudices Muslim women’s access to Sharia courts and contributes to silencing their voice.

The Position of the Concord Center

18.The Concord Center focuses its arguments on the implications of international law on the case at hand. According to the Center, the Family Law and the Equal Rights for Women Act must be interpreted in light of the human rights conventions Israel committed to uphold. The Center mentions the International Convention for Civil and Political Rights, which protects the right of litigating parties to equality in civil legal proceedings. According to the Concord Center, the Sharia court’s interpretation violates this right, as it prevents one of the parties to the proceeding from exercising the litigating party’s right to choose the person who, pursuant to her discretion, will most efficiently represent her before the family council, while the other party benefits from the option of appointing such a person. According to the center, the said interpretation particularly violates women’s right to due process without discrimination. The disqualification of women to serve as arbitrators has negative implications for the status of women as litigating parties. Such disqualification signals to the litigating woman that her position is inferior to that of the man against whom she is litigating. Finally, the Concord Center argues that the Sharia court’s ruling excludes women in terms of public representation. Such exclusion is contrary to Israel’s commitment pursuant to Section 7(b) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, not to restrict women’s participation in the public arena.

Discussion and Decision – Intervening in the Judgment of Religious Courts

19.The religious courts, including Sharia courts, are independent judicial authorities with judicial jurisdiction in matters relating to personal status. As such, this court exercises narrow and limited judicial review to decisions of the religious courts, in accordance with that stated in Section 15 of Basic Law: The Judiciary:

15.       The Supreme Court

…

(c)        The Supreme Court shall sit also as a High Court of Justice. When so sitting, it shall hear matters in which it deems it necessary to grant relief for the sake of justice and which are not within the jurisdiction of another court.

(d)       Without limiting the general applicability of the provisions of subsection (c), the Supreme Court sitting as a High Court of Justice shall be authorized –

…

(4) to order religious courts to hear a particular matter within their jurisdiction or to refrain from hearing or continue hearing a particular matter not within their jurisdiction; provided that the court shall not entertain an application under this paragraph if the applicant did not raise the question of jurisdiction at its earliest opportunity; and if he had no reasonable opportunity to raise the question of jurisdiction until a decision had been given by a religious court, the Court may cancel a hearing that was held or a decision given by the religious court without authority.

…

It has been repeatedly said that this Court does not sit as an instance of appeal on decisions of the religious courts. As such, and in light of the authorities granted to them by law, defined causes of actions were prescribed for this Court’s intervention in decisions by religious courts (HCJ 2578/03, Pachmawi v. Pachmawi, para. 17 (May 8, 2006)). Among such causes of action is the cause of action of ultra vires – the cause of action of violating the rules of natural justice; and the cause of action enshrined in Section 15(c) of Basic Law: The Judiciary, regarding granting relief for the sake of justice (HCJ 11230/05, Muasi v. The Sharia Court of Appeals in Jerusalem, paragraph 7 (March 7, 2007) (hereinafter: the “Muasi Case”). These causes of action, and particularly the latter two, could include various matters from both sides of the coin of justice, violation of the rules of natural justice on the one hand, and relief that shall be granted for the sake of justice, on the other hand. As for this latter cause of action, it has been said:

“The latter cause of action for intervention – ‘for the sake of justice’ – is a blanket cause of action which can cover various different matters. The crux of all these matters is the need to grant relief for the sake of justice in the circumstances of a given case, and there is no necessary internal logical connection between them” (HCJ 5227/97, David v. The Great Rabbinical Court of Jerusalem, IsrSC 55(1) 453, 458-459 (1998)).

20.An additional cause of action justifying this Court’s intervention in the religious court’s decisions is the court’s deviation from the provisions of a law directed to it. The question whether this cause of action falls within the ultra vires cause of action prescribed in Section 15(d)(4) of Basic Law: The Judiciary, or rather within the cause of action justifying intervention to grant relief for the sake of justice, prescribed in Section 15(c) of Basic Law: The Judiciary, has been raised in the court’s rulings. The different classification of the causes of action implicates the determination of the scope of this Court’s intervention:

“This distinction between the causes of the High Court of Justice’s intervention according to the different alternatives of Section 15 of Basic Law: The Judiciary, could implicate the scope and extent of the High Court of Justice’s intervention in the relevant judicial act. If at hand is a court decision that is ultra vires since it did not follow all of the specific details of the civil partnership rule, such decision would generally be overturned. On the other hand, if the matter is classified as a case where relief must be granted for the sake of justice, then there is extensive discretion to examine the essence of the result reached by the court, from a perspective of justice, even if all of the specific details of the civil law required in the path chosen to obtain it, were not strictly implemented.” (HCJ 2222/99, Gabay v. The Great Rabbinical Court, IsrSC 54(5) 401, 426-427 (2000)).

In any event, the proper classification has yet to be ruled upon by courts, and it appears that we, too, are not required to rule on the matter.

The Matter Before Us