142 Alan Sokobin
streaming into New York was the establishment of a Kehillah presided over by Rabbi Judah L. Magnes.® Of evolving importance to the Jews of New York was a need to respond to the labor disputes in the developing areas of trade and manufacture into which the Jews were now entering. The clothing trades were growing and flourishing during these years and a significant
number of both employers and employees were Jewish.®” Derived from the distress in the community because of the level of wages, as well as dramatic and tragic incidents such as the Triangle Shirtwaist Company fire,” there was a series of strikes in the clothing industry. Magnes and the Kehillah developed a plan for arbitration within the Jewish community.®” Simultaneously, Magnes successfully lobbied for reform of the New York ordinance, which encouraged easy revocation of arbitration agreements”? In 1919 the Jewish Arbitration Court was established.” A year later the New York legislature enacted legislation, which upheld the legality of an agreement between two litigants to abide by the decision of a third, non-judicial, party. 72 The Jewish Arbitration Court” dealt with no fewer than fifteen thousand cases between 1919 and 1980.7
Arbitration is strongly endorsed by public policy.” It is essentially a matter of contractual agreement.”® It has been clearly determined in U.S. law, that arbitration panels or courts may determine the extent or limitations of the questions of the conflict.” Questions of law as well as fact may be submitted to arbitration.” The extent of the authority of the arbitrators is determined by the wording of the agreement.” Moreover, an arbitration agreement may validly provide for arbitration in accordance with the laws of another jurisdiction.* Therefore, where arbitration is conducted under the authority and methods of Jewish law, it will normally be enforced by the law of a state or the United States .’! A statute of New York law, where a significant portion of the Jewish community adheres to rabbinic authority and law, specifically authorizes rabbinical courts utilizing Jewish law to issue decisive legal rulings.”
In spite of this clear directive, some New York State courts have refused to accept the decisions of rabbinic courts.® In a case involving custody of a child the court was curt,“The basic principles governing the custody of infants are beyond debate. The state...acts as parens patriae.”* Another New York court affirmed the legal authority of a Bet Din,“the rabbinical board is compe