>Back in 1992 I learnt about rabbinical court hearings held here in the US. At least back then, if you chose to have a cased heard in such a court, the decision of the judges (a panel of 3 rabbis in this case) was legally binding. Right now, with all the hoopla about state and church, I guess it flies under the radar by considering the non-state-based court to be a form of arbitration, which is a legally acceptable and accepted mechanism of conflict resolution.

I'd like to know more about this. I'll guess, as you do, that it was accepted as a form of arbitration, which means both parties had to agree to it. Sounds reasonable to me, just as I think civil arbitration is a good choice.

FWIW, Judaism is pretty clear that Jews are expected to live by the law of the land they live in, except with respect to religious matters.

Tamar