Monday, June 18, 2018

Haifa, Israel - In Rare Ruling, Haifa Rabbinical Court Voids Marriage In Divorce Refusal Case -

vos iz neias

 In a significant and rare ruling, the Haifa Rabbinical Court voided the marriage of Oded Guez, a well-known divorce refuser, freeing his wife after more than four years as an agunah.
The ruling follows a groundbreaking ruling earlier this month by a private rabbinical court annulling the marriage of a woman who was an agunah for 23 years, although that was a more complex and controversial case and the ruling was more revolutionary from the standpoint of Jewish law.
The Haifa Rabbinical Court sealed the ruling and details of the decision and the reasoning in Jewish law behind it will not be made known.
The Guez case became notorious after rabbinical court rulings were issued for him to be publicly shamed and ostracized because of his divorce recalcitrance, and his continued defiance of the court and insistence that nothing would induce him to grant his wife a divorce.
Voiding a marriage is a rarely used tool by the state rabbinical courts, which finds fault with the original marriage ceremony or with another aspect of the wedding, which can then be used to retroactively void the marriage.
The court has, however, sealed its ruling and prohibited its publication, so exact details of the decision will not be known.
In the notification about the ruling, the court said specifically that the marriage had been voided, in a decision made by a two to one majority of the three-man panel.

The Rackman Center at Bar-Ilan University, which represents Guez’s ex-wife in the civil family court praised the rabbinical court “for freeing Ms G from her torturous marriage, expressing its hope that this brave ruling will present the way forward for many more to come in other hard cases of chained women.”


  1. has the Hareidi world left the positions of Rav Elyashiv, since they no longer seem to be concerned by these types of rulings?

  2. This is the beginning of the avalanche...
    A decision made by a two to one majority of the three-man panel.
    So it's not so clear cut that there was never any Kiddushin.
    I wonder why the details of the "hetter" remain confidential.
    Is it because they wouldn't be able to withstand halachic scrutiny?

  3. Who are the judges here, what are their religious affiliations and which (if any) poskim would condone such a ruling?

  4. ברוך מתיר אסורים!

  5. “Haifa, Israel - In Rare Ruling, Haifa Rabbinical Court Voids Marriage In Divorce Refusal Case -”
    Exciting. I hope it’s clear like the “The ruling follows a groundbreaking ruling earlier this month by a private rabbinical court annulling the marriage of a woman who was an agunah for 23 years…”
    Susan is big supporter of “The Rackman Center at Bar-Ilan University, which represents Guez’s ex-wife” and, of course, of the Kamenetsky heter etc.
    Allow me to show you my letter June 18, 2018 to the NYS courts, NYS Inspector General, TIAA, Susan etc. Susan accused me in court’s papers of being a deadbeat dad, a total lie.

    “2.In 1990 there was $2,000,000 in names of my 6 children with Susan as custodian. Early 1994 Judge Rigler ordered the freezing 100% of my TIAA pension. In 1997, Rigler first ordered 100% of my pension to Susan, then, months later, ordered the 1997 QDRO awarding Susan 55% of my TIAA pension. Judge Rigler never authorized TIAA to send sample forms to Susan showing Susan how to draft a QDRO that would be in keeping with ERISA. Judge Rigler never authorized TIAA that, in January 1998, TIAA paid Susan over $23,000 from my TIAA pension, that included the 55% share frozen from early 1994. There was no urgency of 6 children not having what to eat, what to wear, or where to sleep etc. I did the 1990 USA and NYS income taxes for me and for Susan and for our six children all living at home, unmarried. Ian Anderson, my lawyer from my suit against Fordham U., submitted, several times, brokerage statements showing $2,000,000 (Merrill Lynch and Cowen) in names of our 6 children. Once Judge Gerald Garson threw Ian Anderson out of his court room for lack of power of attorney! Judge Gerald Garson was a crooked judge, as we know. Judge Gerald Garson fined me an inappropriate $5,000 for daring me to open my mouth. TIAA acted wholly without court authority and inappropriately, in violation of ERISA and NYS Insurance Law, to my detriment, from early 1994 and throughout. I ask the NYS Inspector General to investigate this. I made complaints to the NYS Insurance Dept. All they did was forward my complaints to TIAA with a request that TIAA to answer me. Exhibit A is one of TIAA's typical answers, inappropriate and far from answering my questions fully and honestly as the law requires. The QDRO has no end.”

  6. that's how a BD works, by voting

  7. In Israel court rulings regarding family issues are confidential. It applies to both , the Rabbinical courts and the civil courts.

  8. In the case that came to R' Elyashiv's BD, regarding the case of the brother and sister (which later R' Goren got into trouble with), they also voted. Had there been a 2-1 majority against R' Elyashiv, that would be the halacha. You cannot sit in a BD and then protest that you are minority.

  9. Granted. However this is not a monetary matter between two parties. It is to determine if a woman is an "Eishes Ish", which is a matter for all of Klal Yisrael.

    The woman until now had a "Chazaka" of being an "Eishes Ish". To undo that presumption, we need to be presented with a clear cut reason to change the status quo. If one rabbi dissented, then the matter is not as simple as it's made out to be. So I assume the "Chazaka" to be intact.

    Add to the mix, that all the other courts who handled this case in the past, and didn't feel that there were valid grounds for annulment. Which seems to suggest that these two rabbis are actually minority opinions.

  10. That is not a Halachic approach.

    There is an explicit halacha in Shulchan Aruch (YD 242:10) that a rabbi is not allowed to permit something that people perceive as being prohibited. However, there happens to be a leniency formulated by the Shach (s.v. 17), IF the rabbi provides a clear rationalization for his ruling.

    A reasonable person will agree that a ruling permitting an "Eishes Ish" to remarry without having received a Get, qualifies as an "unusual ruling". As such, the rabbis involved in this liberal dispensation are either halachically prohibited from making such pronouncements (as per the Shulchan Aruch), or they are duty bound to explain the basis for their leniency (as per the Shach).

  11. Either way this is a Rackman-Krause style "decision".

  12. In that particular case, R' Goren wasn't shy, and didn't hide his Psak. He stood behind it, and published it for all to see (and debate). [I happen to have a hard copy of the Psak].

    When someone says that his halachic ruling is not fit for publication, and refuses to even outline the basis for his ruling, I consider that a non-psak, and will continue to go by "Chezkas Eishes Ish".

  13. Ernesto_Che_BurashkaJune 20, 2018 at 3:09 PM

    It is quite plausible that MO/Dati-leumi are calling the Chareidi bluff on the issue of "not creating two nations in EY". The proper response to past few years' shenanigans (at least as sounded by Gdolim half a century ago) would be to enact ספרי יוחסין and to declare Zionist Rabbanut as הדיוטות if not worse. This would cost a lot in terms of money, jobs and כבוד, and they bet (correctly, IMHO) that it won't happen. The Chareidi silence is deafening

  14. If it matters, the three rabbanim are Sefardi Chareidi, not MO or DL or anything like that.

    פתח הרכב בית הדין הרבני בחיפה בראשות הראב"ד הרב אברהם מאיר שלוש, הרב דניאל אדרי והרב שמואל אברהם חזן

  15. A clarification has been given by the BD: Negiyah isn't the issue. The witness had stopped being dati by the time of the wedding and was fully mechaleil Shabbat.

  16. Invalidated witness


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.