By Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain MBE

The portion is pregnant with controversy and is one of the best arguments for Reform Judaism in general and our Beit Din in particular.

On the positive side, there is much to be admired in it. Who can disagree with the command that if you see the ox or ass of your neighbour who have wandered off elsewhere, you should not ignore them but take the trouble to bring them back to him (Deut 22.1). The same might go if you find other of his/her belongings, be it a dropped wallet or other item. It is so simple: do to others what you would want them to do for you.

Other injunctions tell us to administer justice fairly and not take advantage of the vulnerable, with the stranger, fatherless or widow being singled out as three particular categories of people who are at risk (24.17). Although the verse specifically refers to a court context, it can equally apply to other areas of life, be it business deals or behaviour in shul.

But there are other verses at which we recoil, such as stoning rebellious children (21.18) and not allowing an illegitimate child (a mamzer) marry another Jew for ten generations (23.3), when the illegitimacy was the fault of the parents and should not be visited upon the child.

In the case of the rebellious child, Orthodoxy interprets it away figuratively as just a verbal warning, not a real situation, but then why take other verses literally. What is worse, they do follow the ban on the mamzer, which is cruel and unjust. Why not interpret that as figurative too?

In contrast, Reform Judaism holds that an unethical law cannot be a Jewish law and has abolished the category of a mamzer.

Another difference applies to when a divorce occurs, which the Bible allows but as the verse says that it is the man who awards the Bill of Divorce (a get) to the woman (24.3), Orthodoxy interprets that as only the man can do so and if he refuses to give the religious divorce, then even if they are civilly divorced, the rabbis say the woman is still tied (or chained – in Hebrew agunah) to the man and cannot have a synagogue wedding unless he releases her.

As some men refuse to give their ex-wives a get, Orthodoxy holds there is nothing they can do to help her, whereas our Beit Din holds that if they are already divorced civilly, then he is acting out of malice, is no longer behaving as a Jewish husband should behave and has forfeited his rights. The Reform Beit Din will therefore award a get of its own accord and allow the woman to have her freedom from him.

Recent Commentaries