In an unprecedented case, a Netanya woman has appealed to the High Court of Justice after a rabbinical court ordered her to circumcise her one-year-old son, the Justice Ministry said.

No law makes circumcision obligatory for Jews in Israel, but a rabbinical court that was presiding over the woman's divorce case ruled in November that she had to fulfill her husband's wishes in the matter. It fined her 500 shekels ($142) a day until she did so. The woman appealed, and Justice Yoram Danziger issued an interim order to temporarily suspend the fines.

Rabbinical courts in Israel have jurisdiction over matters of marriage and divorce and operate under the Justice Ministry. But in her appeal, the woman, whose identity has not been disclosed, said the rabbis had no jurisdiction over her son's circumcision.

"This is precedent," said Amnon Givoni, an attorney for the Justice Ministry's Legal Aid department, who, along with two other lawyers, is representing the woman.

"Performing or not performing circumcision is a serious matter and it should be discussed deeply ... and separately from the matter of the couple's divorce."

In their ruling last month, the presiding rabbis said the woman was using her refusal to circumcise her son as leverage against her husband.

They said the couple began divorce proceedings when the baby was one month old and in the time since, the woman had stood in the way of her husband and prevented him from fulfilling one of the most important Jewish edicts.

Jewish law, the rabbis said, puts the onus on the father to see his son is circumcised.

But the mother says circumcision is tantamount to physical abuse.

"I don't believe in religious coercion," she told Channel 2 News at the time.

Her appeal raises the fundamental question of a mother's rights to act in accordance with her conscience and lifestyle in opposing the act of circumcision. The petition does not take a stance on circumcision as a religious ritual.

The rabbinical court had no immediate comment, but in a statement it issued after its ruling last month, it said that it was acting in the child's best interests.