The Rabbinical Court Ruled: You Are Neither Married Nor Single

Interview Content

The Rabbinical Court Ruled: You Are Neither Married Nor Single

The Rabbinical Court Ruled: You Are Neither Married Nor Single

The Oren couple were married according to the law of Moses and Israel in a private ceremony with an Orthodox rabbi, witnesses, and a marriage contract. But when they came to register with the rabbinate, it was ruled that the marriage was considered to be of doubtful validity: they are not exactly married, but also not exactly single. They are now threatening to petition the High Court of Justice, and the rabbinical court is demanding that they marry again – through the rabbinate: “They acted in bad faith”

Meet Noam Oren, a religiously observant young man from Jerusalem. A few weeks ago, he and his partner were married in an Orthodox ceremony with an Orthodox rabbi. There was a wedding canopy, there were witnesses, and there was Rabbi Michael Abraham – but the rabbinical court ruled that the marriage is of doubtful validity, and so the couple currently find themselves in a strange limbo: they are not exactly married – but also not exactly single.

<>

It all began when Oren and his partner decided to marry according to Jewish law – but in a private marriage, without registering with the rabbinate. They later even registered with the ultra-Orthodox court of Rabbi Avraham Dov Levin, which confirmed the validity of the ceremony. “We got married fully in accordance with Jewish law, and after the wedding we asked the rabbinate to recognize our marriage,” he says in the ynet studio. “That didn’t exactly happen.”

Read more on the Judaism Channel:

– Hiel was called up to the Torah against all odds. His father: “This is the most moving moment of my life”

– The road blockers speak: “We are the elite unit of the ultra-Orthodox public”

– Say congratulations: Rabbi Ovadia’s great-granddaughter and grandson got married

“It was very important to me that, precisely on the holiest and most important day of my life, no immoral or unethical elements be involved,” Oren adds. “I see the rabbinate’s conduct as coercive and monopolistic, something I did not want to be part of my marriage.”

“Possibly Married”

The Oren couple, who are religiously observant as noted, chose to add a “conditional” clause to the marriage, protecting the woman in the event of divorce or of being unable to obtain a religious divorce, explains attorney Batya Kahana-Dror, chair of the Mavoi Satum organization. “Jewish law found a solution for this, but the rabbinate does not recognize that solution.”

“We applied through the regular procedure for approval of the marriage by the rabbinical court, but there they made a very strange decision: on the one hand, this couple would not be considered married from the standpoint of Jewish law, and certainly would not be registered as married in the State of Israel – and on the other hand, they are also not free to marry, meaning that they are forbidden to marry anyone else.”

Kahana-Dror sharpens the point: “The rabbinical court’s ruling decides and states that if one marries with this insurance policy, which incidentally Jewish law recognized, then the marriage is doubtful, and it denies it both validity under Jewish law and civil validity.”

“The rabbinate is trying to preserve its monopoly”

The couple was married by Rabbi Michael Abraham, a respected Orthodox rabbi who also teaches at the Institute for Advanced Torah Studies at Bar-Ilan University. However, Rabbi Abraham is not recognized as authorized to conduct marriage ceremonies.

“It is clear that in the subtext the issue is not whether I can or cannot officiate at weddings. I can, and that changes nothing regarding the validity of the marriage,” says Rabbi Michael Abraham. “The subtext is really the attempt to preserve the rabbinate’s power, and the pretexts on the basis of which they say these marriages are problematic are, of course, baseless. These are simply excuses for preserving power.”

Rabbi Abraham emphasizes that “I asked the couple – after they married privately – to go register with the rabbinate, because usually people who marry privately do not end up registering, and in my view that is a very problematic situation, both legally and from the standpoint of Jewish law.

“Part of the issue is not the condition and the agreement made before the marriage, but the very fact that we are trying to register a marriage that was performed privately. The rabbinate here is essentially trying to preserve its monopoly… One thing is clear: the power of the rabbinate will not be undermined as long as the public itself does not try to challenge it. If the public gives backing to this matter, then it will continue to hold the monopoly.”

Rabbi Abraham adds that “I am entirely in favor of challenging the status of the rabbinate. I think this unnecessary institution should have been shut down yesterday. Since that is not happening, all I can do is recommend that whoever is willing to enter this kind of headache should try it. Perhaps in the end it will help. We’ll see.”

“In civil marriages the state grants recognition. It’s absurd”

The main dispute, as noted, centers on a clause that the couple added to their wedding ceremony, intended to protect the woman from situations in which she cannot obtain a religious divorce and from refusal to grant a bill of divorce: “It is very serious that a state which requires all its citizens to marry according to Jewish law does not protect them from the difficult situations that arise when a woman cannot obtain a religious divorce. The state does not provide a solution – so we did. It cannot be that one knowingly enters marriage without any protection. But the rabbinate does not cooperate with this.”

The Oren couple say they will appeal to the Great Rabbinical Court, and if their appeal is not accepted – they will go to the High Court of Justice. “We have no choice,” says Kahana-Dror. “An absurd situation has been created here in which civil marriages are recognized in the State of Israel – whereas religiously observant people who were married according to the law of Moses and Israel will neither be registered nor considered married.”

The rabbinical court: Let them marry again

The rabbinical court responded: “The Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem rejected a couple’s request for retroactive approval of a marriage performed without prior registration at the local rabbinate office, and arranged through a signed agreement containing conditions affecting the validity of the marriage.

“At the marriage ceremony the couple signed a ‘deed of stipulation and authorization,’ containing detailed conditions according to which when the man says ‘You are hereby betrothed to me’ during the ceremony – ‘he intends to betroth the woman subject to these conditions,’ and likewise ‘when the woman agrees to be betrothed during the ceremony, she intends to be betrothed to the man subject to those same conditions.’

“The clauses in the document include conditions for annulling the marriage in circumstances requiring halitzah or separation between them for a period specified in the agreement, or if the woman becomes pregnant by another man, as well as authorization to appoint an agent for a bill of divorce. It was also stipulated that the marriage would have no validity if the aforementioned deed were not approved by the court.

“In the ruling, Judges Rabbi Uriel Lavi, Rabbi Shlomo Tam, and Rabbi David Malka wrote that ‘the applicants did not register for marriage at an authorized rabbinate office, because they were aware that they would be refused a conditional marriage there, and for that reason they also now refuse to approach the Jerusalem rabbinate office for registration of a marriage according to the law of Moses and Israel. Despite the deviation in their actions from the accepted arrangement of the wedding ceremony and from the requirements of the law and regulations, they ask the court, after the fact, to place its seal of approval on what they did, as though this were merely a technical authorization.’

“The judges reviewed the literature of Jewish law dealing with the issue, as well as the language of the law and the regulations, and also noted that the ‘deed of stipulation and authorization’ that was presented – although it contains far-reaching rulings under Jewish law on grave and complex issues – was not approved by a competent authority in Jewish law. In the end they ruled: ‘The wedding ceremony was conducted by a person who is not certified by the rabbinate and is not authorized to conduct marriage ceremonies. This is contrary to Jewish law, which requires a certified and authorized rabbi… This conduct is in bad faith and in a manner that is not accepted; therefore, even if the marriage were valid, the application must be denied.’

“The judges also noted that ‘in this case serious doubts arose as to whether the marriage is valid. Until the examination of the full range of issues under Jewish law is completed, the woman’s status is that of a possibly married woman. The court instructs the parties to arrange a wedding ceremony according to the law of Moses and Israel through the local rabbinate, but without blessings because of the doubt.’

“The court ruled that the parties be entered on the list of those barred from marrying others, and that the registration be erased after the wedding ceremony is arranged through the local rabbinate.”

– Assisted in preparing the article: Kobi Nachshoni

Source (ynet): http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4939051,00.html