The first time I arrived at the court to obtain a restraining order, I was alone, without a lawyer. I was so confused, it isn’t
It took a long time until the Dayanim realized that this was a difficult, unusual case involving extreme violence. It didn’t happen at the start.
At the Beit Din, it is not clear that a person’s freedom should be in his own hands, and that you cannot force someone to
The Dayanim realized from the start that there would be no “Shalom Bait” (spousal reconciliation), which was requested by the other party. However, they struggled
Following our decision to get divorced in 2002, we signed a divorce agreement via a mediator in which he promised to give me a get.
Amendment to the Rabbinical Courts Law (Upholding Rulings on Divorce) – Restrictions on those who refuse to grant a divorce, 5755-1995
In 1995, the ‘Law for the Enforcement of Judgments’ was enacted, also known as the ‘Sanctions Law’. This law allows the Rabbinical Court to impose restraining orders on those who refuse a divorce in cases where the ruling is not complied with.
Some of the sanctions that can be imposed on the refuser by virtue of the law are: an order forbidding leaving the country, foreclosure of a bank account, revocation of a driver’s license and even imprisonment.
In accordance with this bill, marriages and divorces of Jews in Israel, citizens of the state or its residents will remain under the unique jurisdiction of rabbinical courts. However, it is proposed to abolish the possibility of involving related matters in the divorce proceedings in the Rabbinical Court.
My experience in the Rabbinic high court was extremely difficult. Each time I was there, I felt that I was encountering resistance from the dayanim
In 2014 the petitioner was granted a proxy divorce by the Rabbinical Court in Zefat. Since the husband was a “vegetable” the court acted on his behalf during the Halakhic procedure and released the woman from her marriage. In 2017, after a man unrelated to the case, appealed against the ruling, the Rabbinical High Court decided to hold a new hearing on the divorce case. Mavoi Satum successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of Justice, arguing that the Rabbinical High Court is not entitled to reopen the case based on the petition of someone unrelated to the case, thus preventing the woman from becoming once again a tragically chained agunah.
The Rabbinical court, by a range of actions beyond its authority, ruled to reject the application of a woman to annul her marriage since one of the witnesses to the marriage was a pedophile. The High Court of Justice has not yet responded.
Bill to amend the Marriage and Divorce Ordinance (Registration) (repeal of section 7), 5758 –  2017
In this bill, it was proposed to repeal section 7 of the law altogether. Pursuant to this section, a person who does not register his marriage or divorce will be punished with two years of imprisonment. This provision may apply to any couple conducting a private marriage ceremony without registration.
Imprisonment for spouses who performed a private marriage ceremony constitutes a violation of fundamental rights to religious freedom and the privacy of the individual and is in conflict with the values of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.
Precendent: Marriage Annulment in the case of prolonged gett refusal – the decision of a Private Beit Din.
The petition was lodged with the High Court of Justice requesting that it instruct the court to register a couple, who were married privately according to Jewish Law, as a married couple. The court rejected the petition.
A extreme case: the regional Beit Din refused to compel a gett against the direction of the Beit Din Hagadol.
The appeal was lodged with the High Court of Justice following the refusal of the courts to consider a woman for the position of Director. The appeal was accepted and the regulations amended. Unfortunately, the President of the Court was able to circumvent the need to hold an open tender in which both genders could apply for the position, and appointed a sitting judge to the position without a tender. During the deliberations on the appeal, the High Court instructed the court administration to appoint a woman as deputy director of the rabbinical courts. This instruction was implemented.
A bill that will allow an agunah or women who are refused a divorce to receive the services of the sperm bank in order to give birth to children who are not considered bastards by law.
“There is Justice and there is a Judge”: The Rabbinical courts freed an agunah through the use of a “Gett Zikuy” (a Rabbinic award of a gett).
The purpose of this bill is to prevent divorce refusal by the bride and groom signing a prenuptial agreement.
It was proposed that the prenuptial agreement include the prohibition of the termination of the marriage on ancillary matters, such as child custody, child support and education, financial matters and more. In addition, it was proposed that the agreement provide for a financial incentive paid by a refusing spouse to the spouse seeking to terminate the marriage until the actual termination of the marriage.
Actually, prenuptial agreements already exist in practice but many couples avoid signing them. Hence, it was proposed to make them the norm in law.
The purpose of this bill is to stipulate that the authority to discuss the dissolution of the marriage of spouses who have chosen to marry in a civil marriage outside Israel, despite their ability to marry in Israel, will be determined in the courts for family matters.
The purpose of the proposal is to allow the appointment of a woman to the position of Director of the Rabbinical Courts. This, in contrast to the current legal situation, wherein almost only men serve in the rabbinical courts. It proposes to bring about the abolition of the unique requirement for eligibility for rabbinate, which in Israel is given to men only.