Jewish Law Responds to American Law 143
tent to pass on these questions, to hear witnesses, including petitioner and respondent, and to appraise the value given to the testimony of any witness and to render a speedy determination respecting the rights of the parties. The board can apply the legal, moral and religious law to the dispute between the parties.”® A more recent dispute in Pennsylvania involving millions of dollars was settled in a rabbinical arbitration court.® Clearly, there are cases in which Jewish law can be the law of choice in a dispute in arbitration and that the decision of the arbitrators will be enforced by the secular jurisdiction.
IV
At first thought, legal adoption” of children might well be considered as an area where there is no tension between Jewish law and the law of the state. In the most popular sense of the word, adoption is a double mitzvah. A childless couple find realization and contentment as they take a child into their home and hearts, thus filling their lives and the child's life with richly fulfilling love.®8 Unfortunately, the reality and the optimistic hope are not fully congruent.?” Moreover, relating to the theme of this chapter, modern practices of adoption in many American jurisdictions have created important questions for Jewish law.” The significant issue is concerned with the question of open’ or closed 2 adoption. The majority of states have adhered to the closed adoption position.
There is no national law governing the adoption of children in the United States , it is one of the functions of law clearly reserved to the various states.” Until this century most adoptions in the U.S. were arranged without the assistance of the state. Massachusetts passed the first comprehensive adoption statute in 1851.% The early part of this century saw an acceptance by the various states to actively participate in the adoption process. State involvement effectively gave full and complete power to each of the several jurisdictions. It has been characterized as a legislatively created device.”
With the involvement of the mobility of the American people, it became necessary to create some uniformity between the statutes of the various jurisdictions. In 1953 the National Conference of Commissioners on Uni
states and considering the