The Betrayer’s Verdict

A case that was decided by the High Court of Justice in recent years on the question of whether a woman who cheated on her husband should suffer financial sanctions.
The Rabbinical Court ruled yes, they appealed to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court upheld the decision, they appealed again, and yesterday the High Court reversed the decision and announced that „sexual infidelity does not constitute a circumstance that can retroactively deny rights that have been formed”

The High Rabbinical Court reasoned that the act of betrayal negated the husband's intention to share his wife's property registered in his name before the marriage, because if he had known that she would cheat on him – he would not have intended to share the property with her in the first place.

For fishing
https://m.calcalist.co.il/Article.aspx?guid=39108870

They claim that the husband's intention before marriage is conditioned by her behavior after marriage? This is very amusing, since the courts consistently oppose this type of explanation itself when a woman claims that she did not consent to the marriage (for example, with a husband who cheated on his wife). Does the court recommend doing something similar for a husband who cheated on his wife?
Beyond that, it seems to me that the law in the State of Israel requires the sharing of property, and therefore it has nothing to do with the husband's intentions. Although this is about the husband's property from before the marriage and I don't know what the law is regarding this.
In general, I don't see how it is possible to harm the wife's financial rights without this being anchored in a contract between them. A sanction can be imposed by law or by contract, but not by a decision of some court or other.

In the book of Proverbs, what is the good of the house of Jacob?

The betrayal of a spouse is a fundamental violation of the marriage contract. Is it conceivable that the one who betrayed will reach out and appropriate the property that the betrayed had before the marriage? The betrayer also inherits?

With greetings, Nehorai Shraga Agami-Psisowitz

According to the ’logic’ of the ‘traitorous High Court’, it should be said that even a husband who tried to murder his wife – will be entitled to half of the apartment she had before marriage. After all, a partnership was created with the marriage, and no future crime can retroactively cancel a vested right? Crooked…

In astonishment, the husband

Here is a special case of external property from before the marriage that belonged to the husband and therefore there is no sharing unless the husband specifically wanted to share this property. In other words, it is not part of a mutual contract but a question of whether the husband gave a gift (“specific sharing”) and then it does not expire as a result of infidelity, or he did not give (regardless of infidelity), or he did give but on the condition that there is no material damage to the relationship such as infidelity, or he gives a gift that is realized only at the moment of the dissolution of the marriage, that is, it is only a declaration of intent to grant and therefore its conditions depend on the information at the moment of dissolution (this is the opinion of one of the judges, but the High Court ruled generally that the gift is realized during life and not at the moment of dissolution). And in case of doubt, do not take it away from the husband.

The judges have an opinion that the intention of specific sharing was not proven at all, or that it was proven to a degree of only 20%, or that there was sharing but was implicitly conditional on the absence of infidelity. The question of whether there was an intention to share is prima facie factual and therefore usually does not have an appeal court, but the tests by which intentions to share are examined are tests in law and in this case the High Court of Justice invalidated the test method and downplayed the requirement of the standard of evidence set by the court.

In general, treating every gift between friends as something that depends on future circumstances and the giver's guesses of trends is of course problematic in terms of the stability of the social order. Therefore, it is usually required that the conditional clause be explicit. Or that the implied condition that cancels occurred before the moment of sharing, and then the cancellation is both more solid theoretically and more rare in practice (see paragraph 50 of the Hayut ruling).
Therefore, the issue is whether we see every specific sharing that occurred and was established between spouses as a sharing that is implicitly conditional and dependent on loyalty. In this case the High Court ruled that it is not (except in extreme cases).

Whether the laws of implied conditions are a matter of fact (the court came to the conclusion of the couple before us) or a legal rule - this is a matter that has not been fully clarified (this is probably the basis of the dispute between Judge Stein, who sees this as an estimate of opinion and then estimates that the owner of the property before us did indeed make a condition in his heart, and the others who see this as a legal rule. See in particular paragraphs 16-17-18 in Stein. At the moment, all of Stein's words have convinced me when they are applied.). The full rulings contain more details and procedural questions.

After we heard in the High Court that the adulteress has the right to inherit the parents of her unfaithful husband, the question arises: Why shouldn't the adulterer, who is actually in a relationship with the wife of the unfaithful, and thus constitutes a "third leg" in the triangle, also inherit? Why isn't he also entitled to a third of the inheritance of the unfaithful's parents?

With greetings, Bra’la Barshavsky, B’dz d’arba Erzout’, Kachar Hayarden

There is a Pavlovian passage here against the High Court. Whoever is interested in ”ejaculation” and estimates and other fake chatter should be healthy. When you grow up, you understand that ‘truth’ is thrown to the ground and what is important is the stability of social agreements. Therefore, clear and concise rules should be established and whoever wants to deviate from them should be honored to make an explicit agreement. [In my opinion, Judge”a, from a legal perspective, was right about Stein, but as a legislator, she was right about Hayut. And see]

On the 19th of Tammuz,

To Sand, – Greetings,

And from where you came from, – The importance of the stability of social agreements – It is requested that anyone who seriously damages the social order called ‘marriage’by cheating on their spouse, will not be entitled to the inheritance of the injured party's parents. ‘The betrayal and also the inheritance?’

And I already raised the ‘Moshe-Isakov test’ above, in which I asked: Will the High Court judges also grant a share of the inheritance of the parents of the ‘beaten woman’?

Best regards, Aisha

See. The idea of property rights as something objective seems to me utterly absurd. So is the far-fetched idea that ”the one who takes the evidence out of his own pocket” (terms like ‘burden of proof’ and ’default’ were probably invented for the benefit of companies that produce painkillers). And so is the widespread opinion that regards physical monogamy as a major part of a solid marital-family relationship (“one of your most delusional opinions” long live my marital language’).
As far as I am concerned, what should be agreements are for the benefit of stability and general happiness, and the reason agreements are enforced is also only because of stability, and not, God forbid, because of some shattered idea that there is an objective interest in keeping agreements, etc. Therefore, things in the honorable hearts of the parties interest me less than a pickled cucumber that has rotted in my refrigerator. That's where I start.

Now the question is what to do when there is no written agreement. When there is no agreement, then the legislative system should be simplified and not try to delve into the depths of each and every person's feelings. And why? Because it is irrelevant. In almost every gift/contract, you can think of nullifying conditions that the one trusted the other to act/will act in good faith and do so and so, therefore it is bad and harmful and therefore as a dictator legislator I will not do it. Very simple.

There is an assumption that spouses share each other's assets, even if they were accumulated before the wedding (this is the specific rule of sharing that all the rulings revolve around). Now that the judge will sit down and assess in his mind what the opinion of this couple is based on their lifestyles and behavior and what indications there are of certain opinions and certain intentions (as Stein says) this is in my opinion a very harmful and bad idea. There are clear case cases where the estimate is very clear (as shown there in the rulings) and then there is no real need for the judge's learned assessments.

What do you think about someone who brought a gift to his friend and then his friend beat him to death? Is the gift void? I think Mr. Isakov will also get his (although if they issue a restraining order against his head, I certainly won't regret it).

The whole idea of contracts and agreements is based on nothing.
And the word betrayal is not clear what it describes. That the husband was so innocent that he thought she would not sleep with someone else? That is the husband's problem.
The husband's innocence is such that he agreed to share his money with her.
You pay for stupidity. He should have stipulated this in a contract that if she cheated on him she would not receive anything.
Since he did not do this, he will pay.

All this is from the people. From the Torah, death is innocent.

The arbiter, if you were the chief legislator and the supreme judge, wouldn't you enforce compliance with contracts and agreements?

It is not the role of a court to interfere with people's psychological desires and whims.
A contract is not a legal matter but a psychological matter that one day a person wants it this way and one day changes his mind.

Ultimately, by nature, all men are superior. And if the court intervenes, it is by virtue of its violence. And this happens not on the side of justice but because it represents wealthy people who have an enormous interest based on the instinct of envy and accumulation in ensuring that contracts and agreements are not violated. It provides the service to the citizen by the way.

Do you think contracts should be enforced (even without the Torah) yes or no?

What is the connection between Torah and contracts?
I would cancel any validity of future obligations and say that it is not natural for a person to commit to the future because in the future his mind can change.

What is forbidden is to deceive. And when a person commits to the future, there is a fraud in it because he does not know what the day will bring. In contracts there is a prohibition not to deceive

I don't understand you. You wouldn't enforce futures contracts?

In the case of the 19th of Tammuz, 5521,

Even in an express contract between the spouses that requires partnership even in assets that fell to one another from another place, there is a clear presumption that they did not write to each other with the intention of harming and inheriting. However, in the case of Dehbach, the court does not discuss an express contract between them at all, but rather a partnership that comes by virtue of the ‘Distribution of Financial Assets Law’ which supposedly creates an ‘implied agreement’, and in this case all the more so since there is a clear presumption that they did not intend to give the right to inherit the parents of the injured party to the one who caused serious harm.

Best regards, Aisha

Contracts should not be enforced. Justice should be pursued.

Aisha, why specifically in spouses, in any contract in the world you can add a demo estimate.

Posek, you should know that I am one of your biggest critics here, but here I don't understand what you are saying. What is pursuing justice? Make a contract, take a box of tomatoes and in return you will drive my sister to school all week. Now the other person doesn't want to give the box or the recipient received the box but refuses to drive the sister. What is enforcing a contract here and what is pursuing justice?

You look at things with a robotic perspective, which is why you even use the word contract, which is a made-up fake of a collection of words that seems to express something in reality while it expresses nothing human.

To pursue justice is to find out why that person agreed to give him the box and asked him for what he asked for and why that person took the box and said he would do what he would do and why he didn't do it in the end.

To enforce a contract means not asking any questions of why but questions of what happened or didn't happen and the remedy accordingly. A cruel technical act devoid of any humanity. Done in the name of the enormous importance of the sanctity of contracts and maintaining public order (translation to public order: preserving capital among the capitalists)

Find out and what you find. That one regretted it for all sorts of reasons, for example, he found a better deal or was lazy.

After all, at the moment before the contract, both parties want to have a reliable enforcement system so that they can commit (if there is no third party to enforce, then other collateral must be provided, and that is a serious burden). The contract must be enforced today so that people have the option to make contracts comfortably tomorrow.

On the 19th of Tammuz, 5752

To Sanad, – Greetings.

Even in partnership agreements, the ’reasonable estimate’ has significance, if one of the partners seriously violates his obligation to his partner, such as when it is discovered that he spied and gave the secrets of the company in which he was a partner to its competitors, thereby causing it enormous damage. Is it conceivable that he would be able to demand a share as a share in the profits?

But in a partnership between spouses, much more is shared than the mutual investment of the spouses in the production of the joint income (in which case it can be said that both were partners in the production, since the wife's occupation with housework and childcare helped the husband to free up time and make profits) – Here, the spouses share with each other the inheritance of their parents, and this only belongs out of the love between them that makes them the ’nearest relative’. Is it conceivable that the one who betrayed will continue to be considered the ’nearest relative’ of the betrayed?

Are the parents of the betrayed interested in bequeathing their inheritance to the son/daughter who betrayed their son/daughter?

Surprisingly, A”sh

He shares in the profits and will compensate for the damages.
The huge difference is that in most couples today, this is an estimate that is very (very) proven?
Whether the property is inherited from the parents or he found an apartment thrown away in a market stall, there is of course no difference.

“After all, at the moment before the contract both parties are interested…”
What both parties are interested in does not matter. What matters is what is right.
Even the slave who wants to remain unfree has his ear pierced.

And do you think that with your approach you will maximize the total overall happiness in society over time, or do such trifles not bother you in the race towards "justice"?

Whoever wants to maximize general happiness should invent a machine that injects happiness-inducing drugs and connect all humans to it.

After all, the slave himself says: I have loved my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out without my life.

According to this, it seems that according to the Torah, the issue of being free and not a slave is more important than just being happy and doing what you love.

It is forbidden to take out a loan with interest. Even though both parties are interested…

Many contracts are signed when one party is strong and the other is weak and is essentially exploited. The main beneficiaries of the contracts are the owners of capital.

It is possible to impose regulation on contracts (like having a minimum wage in an employment contract). From here to avoiding the enforcement of contracts to detailed clarification of all the legalities in the world - it is a long way.

In the 17th of Tammuz, the majority of the judges of the High Court are not at all interested in the "marriage contract", in which there is no contractual obligation to bequeath the parents' inheritance to the spouses who cheated.. I wonder what the reaction of the bride and groom will be if they are asked at the time of the wedding whether they are ready for this 🙂

The judges of the High Court (in the words of Segi Nahor) are following their 2013 opinion in which they renewed that adultery is not considered a breach of the marriage contract, and therefore compensation cannot be demanded from the adulterer, see the article "The Tort of Negligence Is Not the Third Passenger", on the website of Attorney Elinor Leibowitz.

The "Normal Voice" In the trial, he represented (as in other cases) the judge of the Family Court in Tiberias, Assaf Zaguri, (currently Vice President of the Family Court in Nazareth), who ruled in 2011 that a claim for compensation for infidelity by a spouse should not be dismissed outright. His ruling is presented in the article ‘Damages Claim for Infidelity’, on the website of Attorney Karni Shalev.

Of course, the Supreme Court's ruling from 2018 simply ended the rule on monetary sanctions against infidels in the courts, and now they have decided to enforce the laws of Sodom on the rabbinical courts as well. Infidelity, according to the Supreme Court judges, is the exercise of the ‘right of the infidel over his own body. E 🙂

With disgust and disgust, Amioz Yaron Schnitzel”

Paragraph 3, line 1
The ‘normal voice’ in the legal system, represented…

Paragraph 4, line 1
Of course, the Supreme Court”s 2013 ruling just…

There seems to be some misunderstanding here.
The Supreme Court judges did not rule according to the law.
They enacted a new law according to which the default is that cheating is permitted and there are no sanctions.
This is a law, not a ruling.