A decision by the Supreme Rabbinical Court to allow a man to marry a second wife because his first wife refused to accept a divorce has evoked consternation from women’s rights groups due to what they describe as the unequal status of men and women facing divorce refusal.
A case published this week by the Rabbinical Courts Administration involved a married couple whose relationship broke down for a number of reasons, including possible infidelity on behalf of the wife.
In 2005, the husband moved out of their marital home, and in 2008 the regional rabbinical court in Haifa issued a ruling of “obligatory divorce,” essentially instructing a partner, in this case the woman, to agree to the divorce.
The court also permitted the husband to give the money owed to the woman under the terms of their marriage contract to a third party, which would then release him of financial obligations to the woman such as child sustenance and living payments.
The woman appealed to the Supreme Rabbinical Court against the ruling regarding the husband’s monetary obligations, but the court rejected the appeal. She then filed a suit for reconciliation with her husband to the regional court, which she also lost, as well as a subsequent appeal of that decision to the Supreme Rabbinical Court.
Due to the lengthy and ongoing legal proceedings over the termination of the marriage, the husband filed a suit with the Haifa Rabbinical Court for what is known as the Dispensation of 100 Rabbis.
Under Jewish law, men may have more than one wife, although the practice was banned for Ashkenazi Jews by a decree of Rabbi Gershom Ben Judah in the 11th century. However, a man may be given dispensation from this decree in certain circumstances if he cannot obtain consent from his wife for a divorce, a measure which is known as the Dispensation of 100 Rabbis.
In 2014, the Haifa Rabbinical Court granted the husband’s request, after which his wife appealed to the Supreme Rabbinical Court.
In June of this year, the court rejected her appeal and permitted the husband to marry another woman if he so wished. The ruling was published earlier this week.[...]
Hey Monty! Are you gonna demand to see this court's document?
ReplyDelete“The woman appealed to the Supreme Rabbinical Court against the ruling regarding the husband’s monetary obligations, but the court rejected the appeal. She then filed a suit for reconciliation with her husband to the regional court, which she also lost, as well as a subsequent appeal of that decision to the Supreme Rabbinical Court.”
ReplyDeleteThis supports Susan’s sworn 10/21/2016 affidavit:
The 1989 Aliya (move to Israel) application, submitted repeatedly by Mr. Aranoff to Judge Rigler and numerous other NYS Courts, was 2.5 years old at the time Mr. Aranoff abandoned the family. Though we considered Aliya in 1989, I soon decided against it because Mr. Aranoff’s behavior as a parent and spouse had become insufferable. With a troubled marriage, aside from all the stresses that would increase with moving to Israel, I felt it dangerous for me to move to Israel because I could become subject to the Israeli Rabbinical Court system. I regret to say, especially in a public court, that as an activist in the field of Orthodox Jewish divorce, I knew that rabbinical courts, both in the United States and Israel, are dangerous for women and children. I told Mr. Aranoff, when he repeatedly tried to pressure me into moving to Israel, that fear of the Israeli Rabbinical Courts was a threshold issue that I could not cross and could therefore, not move to Israel given our troubled marriage. Regarding my trepidations concerning Israeli Rabbinical courts, here is what I wrote in 1991 affidavit with the assistance of my late friend Irwin Haut, an attorney and rabbi:
“Your deponent (me, Susan Aranoff) is very well satisfied with the American legal system and its courts and its judges and laws, particularly in the areas of marriage and divorce and custody and maintenance of the children. It would be the height of insanity for me to subject myself to the vagaries of the jurisprudence practiced by the Rabbinic courts in Israel, which have jurisdiction over laws of marriage and divorce and custody and maintenance. The court is advised that the Rabbinical courts in Israel apply principles and rules of Jewish law regarding all such matters, including custody, which are totally at variance from those in this court and I absolutely refuse to subject myself and my children to the vagaries of that law ”
The feminists love state courts in the USA. A federal court convicted Mendel Epstein et al. See Rabbi Melamed yesterday http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/19930
ReplyDelete“In my humble opinion, it appears that everything depends on the judge’s positions. If he regrets that the system is not run according to Torah law, and tries his best to amend it, then his appointment as judge is valuable. Understandably, he cannot violate his obligation to rule according to the accepted law, but in cases where the law is subject to interpretation, it is a mitzvah for him to stretch the interpretation as far to the edge as possible in the direction of Torah law, in the same way secular judges sometimes tend to stretch their interpretation of the law radically in the secular direction.”
It is still against Israeli state law to be polygamous, so I suppose that any israeli civil will overthrow the rabbinate... and this man will have to pay a fine or go to prison...
ReplyDeletewhat does the law actually say?
ReplyDeleteIsraeli law recognizes that in the case of a Heter of 100 Rabbis, the halacha trumps civil law.
ReplyDeleteסעיף 176 לחוק העונשין, התשל"ז-1977, שכותרתו "ריבוי נישואין" קובע: נשוי
הנושא אשה אחרת, ונשואה הנישאת לאיש אחר, דינם - מאסר חמש שנים.
עם זאת, סעיף 179 לאותו חוק שכותרתו "היתר נישואין לפי דין תורה" מעניק הגנה למי שקיבל היתר נישואין מבית דין רבני, וההיתר אושר בידי נשיא בית הדין הרבני הגדול:
היה הדין החל על הנישואין החדשים דין התורה לא יורשע אדם על עבירה לפי סעיף 176 אם הנישואין החדשים נערכו לאחר שניתן לו היתר נישואין לפי פסק-דין סופי של בית-דין רבני ופסק-הדין אושר בידי נשיא בית הדין הרבני הגדול.
תקנה קעד לתקנות הדיון בבתי-הדין הרבניים בישראל, התשנ"ג, קובעת שפסק דין להיתר נישואין יקבל תחילה את אישורו העקרוני של הנשיא, בעת הצורך יישלח פסק הדין לחתימת מאה רבנים, ולאחר מכן ייתן הנשיא את אישורו הסופי, שבעקבותיו יהיה פסק הדין בר ביצוע.
Its not against bisraeli law
ReplyDeleteFirst, a man with two wives can make aliyah with both of his wives. He just can't take a second wife and while in Israel by decision of the rabbanut. Even sfardi rabbanim took upon themselves not to make second marriages. So I the decision is strictly one reserved for the rabbanut.
Muslims have no problem with more than two wives.
If you find a rabbi who will marry you polygamously in Israel, because he is temani and you are temani, it is still illegal and you would get punished.
ReplyDeletethe rabbi will get punished, not you.
ReplyDeleteactually, thats only to prevent conservative rabbis performing marriages.
but they will pressure for a get. unless the wife(ves) dont complain.
rav ovadia yosef did such a
Question: as I understand, she committed adultery. If that's what happened, doesn't halacha automatically obliges the couple to divorce?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/221373
ReplyDeleteThis has nothing to do with a Heter 100 Rabbanim.
ReplyDeleteIt's merely an interesting tidbit about an adult woman who consented to be the second halachic wife of a person (though not officially sanctioned by the Rabbanut). She then got buyer's remorse, and wanted out. The Rabbanut pressured the husband to divorce, and he agreed to do so.
Is this considered a Get Me'useh? Maybe. If yes, then she's in bad shape. She will remarry on the basis if this forced Get, and have little mamzer babies...