YNET
After agreeing and then refusing his wife a traditional Jewish divorce, the High Court stands with the rabbinical court that decided to publish the photo and details of Sharon Ben Haim, in an effort to get him to finally release his wife from marriage
The Haifa Rabbinical Court has published the details and photo of divorce-refuser Sharon Ben Haim.
The publishing came after Ben Haim petitioned to the High Court to stop the Rabbinical Court from publishing his details and photos and imposing religious and social sanctions on him. His petition was denied.
The publishing came after Ben Haim petitioned to the High Court to stop the Rabbinical Court from publishing his details and photos and imposing religious and social sanctions on him. His petition was denied.
Ben Haim has denied his wife, who lives in New Jersey, a divorce for the past seven years. The two married in 2008. They lived in the United States, where their daughter was born.
But their relationship ran into difficulties when, according to his estranged wife, Ben Haim and used verbal violence against her, humiliated her and her family and even demanded her to report to him on every financial decision she makes.
Attorney Tal Itkin, who is representing the wife in Israel, said that during a joint visit to Israel in 2010, the wife petitioned for a gett (a traditional Jewish divorce). Ben Haim originally agreed and even signed the gett, but did not hand it over due to a disagreement over a stay of exit order issued against him. Eventually, the stay expired, at which point he fled the country.
Since then, and despite consistent efforts by the rabbinical court, Ben Haim has refused to grant his wife a gett that would release her from the marriage. In 2012, a rabbinical court declared him to be a felon, informing Jewish communities around the world of this and calling on them to enact several sanctions. Among them are excluding him from prayer minyans and not allowing him to be buried in a Jewish cemetery.
A representative of Ben Haim appealed the rabbinical court's decision, claiming that he is willing to grant a gett, but that he is afraid to return to Israel to do so, for fear that he will be arrested. After the rabbinical court rejected his appeal, he petitioned the High Court, which also rejected his case. [....]
1. How does an Israeli court/beis din have jurisdiction of this divorce case even the husband's only connection to Israel is he visited there? This case belongs in a New Jersey beis din.
ReplyDelete2. How does a husband "sign" a Get?
3. Halachicly a husband has a right to insist he first approve financial decisions his wife wishes to undertake.
Those questions are so obvious, I found myself shaking my head the entire time.
ReplyDeleteAre you nuts? This is n't about her discussing with him when she wants to buy a car. It is that he "demanded her to report to him on every financial decision she makes." Beside for the fact that even in terms of dry halacha, a woman certainly has discretion with regard to a davar mu'at, demanding this kind of accounting is abusive. Full stop.
ReplyDeleteread the post
ReplyDelete"A representative of Ben Haim appealed the rabbinical court's decision, claiming that he is willing to grant a gett, but that he is afraid to return to Israel to do so, for fear that he will be arrested."
ReplyDeleteWithout going into the merits or demerits of public shaming to force a husband to give a Get, I fail to understand the sincerity of the above statement. If he's willing to grant the Get, he can can do so by proxy, from New Jersey. So why is he withholding the Get? There might be more to the story, which the woman's side doesn't want us to know.
"even demanded her to report to him on every financial decision she makes."
What is the husband's side of the story? Was she blowing all their money, spending it on nonsense?
Re question #1. It could be that he/she is an Israeli citizen. As such, as soon as they step into the country, the law can be leveraged against them.
ReplyDeleteI read the post in its entirety. There is no clue there to answer any of Moe's questions.
ReplyDeleteYou may be correct about the halacha, but that doesn't impugn Moe's valid questions.
ReplyDeleteHalachicly jurisdiction belongs in a beis din in the defendants home town.
ReplyDeleteAccording to halacha any purchase over a token amount needs to be approved by the husband. In the absence of his approval, halacha grants him the right to get back any money his wife paid to anyone else, even if the goods or services she obtained have been used up.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, the defendant being out of his hometown (visiting Israel), is slapped with an order prohibiting them from leaving the country, de faco forcing them to at least agree to some BD of their choosing to hear their case.
ReplyDeleteLet me ask you a few questions: Is that how you run your household? Do you think that running a household that way is a good idea? Would you be happy to hear that your daughter's husband demands that she get his approval before buying a skirt?
ReplyDeleteWhy not simply ask Is that the way you treat your wife?
ReplyDelete?? That was the first question I asked.
ReplyDelete“A representative of Ben Haim appealed the rabbinical court's decision, claiming that he is willing to grant a gett, but that he is afraid to return to Israel to do so, for fear that he will be arrested.”
ReplyDeleteInteresting, we have here a jurisdiction issue. Me too, Susan v Gerald. I wrote today to the NYS Court of Appeals motion 2017-262:
2. I seek in my motion 2017--262 for the court to reverse the Appellate Division's 1996 ruling. The Appellate Division's 1996 ruling is a horrible/terrible ruling. It makes for Susan v Gerald to have no end in sight. Allow me to explain.
4.The Appellate Division's 1996 ruling: …During the pendency of the separation action in New York, on February 17, 1993, a Rabbinical Court in the State of Israel issued a divorce decree…However, in order for a divorce decree of a foreign court to be accorded recognition in this State, the foreign court must have had in personam jurisdiction over both spouses (see, Greschler v Greschler, supra, at 376). Here, the record does not establish that the Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem had jurisdiction over the wife…
5. The Appellate Division judges erred claiming I failed to show personam jurisdiction over both spouses. Impossible for Israel to divorce me and Susan 2/17/1993 on Susan's initiative without having jurisdiction over me and Susan. Maybe in some banana country it would be possible for a foreign government to issue a divorce decree without jurisdiction over both parties. The child support issues didn't interest me. I don't care about money. The judges erred in denying my lawyer, Ian Anderson, to amend his answer.
It isn't. I'm simply relating what the halacha is. Of course the husband can be mochel this right to whatever extent he so chooses.
ReplyDeletethe wife can say she can't stand this and that it is not normal for a man to be so controlling. Beis Din can agree with her .
ReplyDeleteIt has nothing to do with rights it has to do with normal and healthy relationship.
The husband also has the right to do lots of things which most people would find disgusting and difficult to live with . The simple question is whether this is normal behavior and something that most people can live with
If the Shulchan Aruch specifically says the husband can do this, it's hard to see how it the wife comes to beis din demanding a divorce on the basis of her husband doing what the S"A says he may will result in the B"D agreeing it's a valid basis.
ReplyDeleteSo we're back to the question is "Ma'us Alai" sufficient grounds for "Gett on Demand"?
ReplyDeleteMa'us alei with agreement with the beis din that a normal woman would not put up with this type of behavior
ReplyDeleteagain if most women today consider something as unbearable - it doesn't matter that the husband has a legal right to do it.
ReplyDeleteMarriage is primarily about a relationship and if objectively as viewed by the beis din there is no relationship or the relationship is very unpleasant than they can say he should divorce his wife.
So Beis din agrees with her that he's a jerk. So would I, if I knew that her version of the story is true. And practically speaking, she won't need to put up with this type of behavior. She'll move out. But that doesn't mean that she has halachic grounds to coerce him into giving a Get against his will.
ReplyDeletenot talking about coercion - but that beis din says he should do it
ReplyDeleteלא חרבה ירושלים אלא מפני שהעמידו דבריהם על דין תורה.
ReplyDeleteWhatever the Israeli Rabbinate states has no halachic muscle as they violate the torah daily. Just today ,israel national news reports that a new law passed in israel gives the rabbanut the right to not only jail these men but refuse then tefilin, seforim and kosher food. How absurd is this? they claim that if you refuse to perform one mitzva, then they will take away from you other mitzvot.
ReplyDeletesee http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/226362
The link you posted does not show that story. Do you have a better link?
ReplyDeleteRDE, If beis din says he should give a Get in the circumstances of the case you're describing, does that mean they're recommending he give it (though he isn't halachicly obligated to) or does it mean he is halachicly obligated to give a Get even if he doesn't want to?
ReplyDeleteIt is a recommendation not an obligation
ReplyDeleteFrom the above link:
ReplyDelete"The Knesset yesterday approved the first reading of the law to deprive recalcitrant prisoners of privileges granted to observe religious life, including billeting in the Torah wing, study and keeping books, attending Torah classes and access to holy books. In addition, the objector will not be allowed to get special kosher meals.
"The explanatory annex accompanying the bill clarifies that it is intended to bring pressure to bear upon male objectors. "A person who chooses to live according to Jewish law can not decide on the parts he accepts and those he rejects," Muallem said. "Judaism encompasses the fundamental principle of 'Love thy neighbor as thyself'.""
So if he declines to accept the recommendation and chooses to not divorce, he commits no aveira?
ReplyDeletedepends on whether you consider not listening to chachomim an aveira
ReplyDeleteLchora, a MO Jew who doesn't hold Daas Torah is binding in a non-mandatory situation, would hold that it is okay and not sinful to choose to not accept this non-halachicly obligatory recommendation.
ReplyDelete