Jlem rabbinical court refuses to let widow of 13 years marry

shabbatiscoming

Tue, Sep 09 2014, 1:02 am

This story is so sad.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-Ne.....74371

Woman performed ‘halitza’ rite to release her from husband’s brother, but was denied to wed new partner, with whom she had four children.

A widow who was unable to remarry for 13 years due to the refusal of her dead husband’s family to allow a little- known ceremony to be performed has recently been denied the right to finally marry her partner of over 10 years by the Jerusalem Rabbinical Court.

The case involves the ancient and now defunct practice of levirate marriage and the arcane ceremony still required to obviate the biblical requirement.

A levirate marriage is a particular stipulation of Jewish law, which is no longer operative, in which a man has to marry his brother’s widow if the married couple did not have children.

Any children of the new marriage would carry the name of the dead man, so his name is perpetuated.

Despite the fact that levirate marriage is no longer performed, Orthodox practice stipulates that the “halitza” ceremony, which symbolically releases the widow and her former brother-in-law from the obligation of marrying each other, must still be performed in order to allow the woman to remarry.

The ceremony requires the widow to take off the shoe of her brother-inlaw, known as the “yabam,” and spit in front of him.

Shlomit Lavi, now 42, was happily married to her husband, Shlomi, for a year and a half until he died 13 years ago.

She initially believed that performing the halitza ceremony would be a formality, but her father-in-law demanded that she pay NIS 200,000 for his son, the brother of her late husband, to perform the ceremony.

Shlomi Lavi’s family claim Shlomit misused money that was supposed to be used for his treatment, although she vehemently denies this.

According to Lavi, the Jerusalem Rabbinical Court, in which the case was heard, asked her to compromise, but her former father-in-law was not willing to reduce his demands to a sum she could afford, and his family filed three separate suits in the family courts against her in a process that took 13 years to complete.

Earlier this year, a judge in the family court finally arranged a compromise agreement between the two sides, whereby Lavi agreed to pay the family NIS 20,000, and in return the family promised to permit the halitza ceremony to be conducted.

In July this year, Shlomit flew to Canada, where her brother-in-law resides, and the halitza ceremony was performed under the auspices of an Orthodox rabbinical court in Toronto.

However, in the years during which the family refused to perform the halitza ceremony, Shlomit found a new partner and had four children with him, but was unable to marry him since Jewish law prohibits a woman from marrying without having performed halitza.

But despite having finally completing the process, which should have permitted her to remarry, the state rabbinical court in Jerusalem refused in July to grant her permission to remarry, even though it recognized that the halitza ceremony had been performed in accordance with Jewish law.

The rabbinical court ruled that since she had lived with a man and had children with him before the halitza ceremony was performed, she was no longer permitted to marry him according to Jewish law.

Tehila Cohen, an attorney and rabbinical court advocate for Yad L’Isha: the Monica Dennis Goldberg Legal Aid Center, a women’s rights group, represented Shlomit in court.

Cohen noted that there is a basis in Jewish law for the rabbinical judges to prevent Shlomit marrying her current partner, but strongly criticized the Jerusalem court’s decision, pointing out that there are also opinions in Jewish law to allow her to marry him.

Senior authorities in Jewish law – including the late Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, a revered arbiter of Jewish law – were lenient in such cases, she added.

Lavi will appeal the case to the Supreme Rabbinical Court of Appeals, although the process will take years because of a large case-backlog in the court.

Speaking to The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday, Lavi strongly condemned the ruling of the Jerusalem Rabbinical Court and its attitude toward her throughout the process.

“The judges were almost abusive toward me, they treated me as if I had slept around or cheated on my husband,” she said. “They told me that because of me my late husband has no rest or peace.”

Lavi claimed that one of the judges had told her that part of the reason she could not marry her partner was because she is Sephardi whereas he is Ashkenazi.

She also strongly criticized the court for not working harder to persuade her husband’s family to agree to the halitza ceremony, and noted it had never challenged her father-in-law’s involvement nor requested that he present a power-of-attorney document to act on behalf of his son, her husband’s brother.

Lavi was equally critical regarding the ruling preventing her from marrying her current partner, Alon.

“This is my life, of course I’m going to find someone else and have children,” she said. “I was 29 when my husband died, do they think I’ll remain alone and not have children for so long? It’s the basic right of a Jew in Israel to get married.”

Lavi insisted that she views the halitza ceremony as valid within Jewish tradition, although she said it had been hard for her to perform, likening it to a second funeral for her husband .

“Once the ceremony was done it gave me great tranquility that the soul of my husband could find rest and that this burden on my heart was now relieved,” she said.

Attorney Cohen was also critical of the Jerusalem Rabbinical Court, and said that it should look for ways to prevent the possible abuse of power inherent in the requirement for halitza.

“The commandment of halitza gives to a man who is a stranger to the woman, a man who the woman did not choose and did not marry, the power to control her life,” said Cohen, who is one of seven attorneys and rabbinical court advocates working for Yad L’Isha, part of the Ohr Torah Stone network of educational and social-justice organizations.

“It is expected of the Beit Din [court] to prevent in every way possible the abuse of this power by the yabam [brother-in-law] for purposes not connected to the mitzva,” she said.

“When a woman is chained to the yabam, she does not however give up on her right to a partner and to bring children into the world. If after the halitza she wants to get married in accordance with Jewish law, the more lenient opinions in Jewish law should be relied upon to allow her to marry in accordance with Jewish law,” she added.

In response to a request for comment from the Post, the Jerusalem Rabbinical Court noted that it was the claims of the family for money that had delayed the performance of the halitza ceremony.

It said that its ruling preventing her from remarrying was made in accordance with Jewish law, although it noted the more lenient position in Jewish law that would not prohibit her from marrying her partner, and said she could appeal the decision to the Supreme Rabbinical Court.

The rabbinical court did not address Lavi’s claim that one of the justices said part of the reason she couldn’t marry her partner is because she is Sephardi and he is Ashkenazi.

DrMom

Tue, Sep 09 2014, 2:35 am

I'm confused:

Quote:

Woman performed ‘halitza’ rite to release her from husband’s brother, but was denied to wed new partner, with whom she had four children.

A widow who was unable to remarry for 13 years due to the refusal of her dead husband’s family to allow a little- known ceremony to be performed has recently been denied the right to finally marry her partner of over 10 years by the Jerusalem Rabbinical Court.

Did she perform the halitza ceremony or not?

m in Israel

Tue, Sep 09 2014, 2:43 am

DrMom wrote:

I'm confused:

Quote:

Did she perform the halitza ceremony or not?

She just recently did chalitza for her husband who died 13 years ago. However since she was together with this man BEFORE the chalitza (during the 13 years that the husband's family was attempting to extort money from her) the BD has ruled she cannot marry him. (I don't know the halachos well, but basically a woman who is obligated in yibum has a status almost of an eishes ish -- So I am guessing that this psak is related to that.)

BTW, without knowing anything whatsoever about this case, the Ashkenazic/Sefardic issue actually is not difficult to understand. The article specifically said that R' Ovadia, tz"l has allowed individuals in this type of situation to get married. So it is very possible that they told her that had her partner been Sefardic they would have relied on R' Ovadia's psak, but since he is Ashkenazic they must follow the psak of the Ashkenazic poskim. Again, I have no clue about the relevant Halachic implications, but I'm pretty sure that the ruling wasn't based on an objection to an Ashkenazi marrying a Sefardi.

ally

Tue, Sep 09 2014, 4:15 am

So she may as well have saved her 20000 nis. Except I guess she said the ceremony brought her some peace of mind.
I'm glad she just went ahead and lived her life.
The rabbanut needs to stop enabling bullying and extortion of women. This case is even worse than an agunah on some levels because none of it was her choice. Or perhaps women should not marry men with brothers(!).

imasinger

Tue, Sep 09 2014, 6:46 am

m in Israel wrote:

Thanks for explainng that.

What a very sad situation.

Could it not have been avoided if the courts firmly pressured the family to do yibum immediately, and bring a separate lawsuit for the claimed financial issue?

Why would they not do this? I have seen too many times when everyone screams misogyny without gathering all the facts.

Last edited by imasinger on Tue, Sep 09 2014, 7:01 am; edited 2 times in total

the world's best mom

Tue, Sep 09 2014, 6:57 am

A- Why is this woman so eager to get married all of a sudden? She's been living with the new guy for years already and they have 4 children together- so why get married at all?

B- Her widows family is obviously mad at her. They claim she took money that was supposed to pay for medicine for her husband, and by withholding the medicine, she caused him to die. They don't seem like monsters to me- they seem like a hurting family who is very mad at the person who in essence murdered their son. She denies it- well of course- we wouldn't expect her to admit to being a murderer.

C-The only reason to post this information as far as I could see is in order to bad-mouth the Rabanim involved. It's L"H- or Motzi Shem Ra, since they are not the bad people you are making them out to be.

m in Israel

Tue, Sep 09 2014, 7:05 am

imasinger wrote:

This puzzles me very much as well. With a get there are complex issues of a "forced get" which could be invalid, but I don't believe such issues apply with yibum. So why couldn't the BIL be pressured to do it? Although I guess technically from a legal perspective they may not have any grounds for getting involved -- I don't think there is any law against refusing to do chalitza Sad

But you would think that someone could somehow pressure them to do the right thing.

I would guess that the family probably had no legal grounds to request this money, so they couldn't bring a lawsuit to get the money, which is why they resorted to extortion in this sick way. This is a heartbreaking story in any case.

shabbatiscoming

Tue, Sep 09 2014, 7:06 am

the world's best mom wrote:

That was not why I posted this news story at all. I just found it to be a very sad news story and felt like sharing it. That was it.

FranticFrummie

Tue, Sep 09 2014, 7:08 am

the world's best mom wrote:

What is your source for this side of the argument? I'm not seeing an abundance of compassion or understanding going on here. Isn't accusing a widow of murdering her husband Lashon Hara as well?

the world's best mom

Tue, Sep 09 2014, 7:18 am

It says in the article: "She initially believed that performing the halitza ceremony would be a formality, but her father-in-law demanded that she pay NIS 200,000 for his son, the brother of her late husband, to perform the ceremony.

Shlomi Lavi’s family claim Shlomit misused money that was supposed to be used for his treatment, although she vehemently denies this."

Yes, it is all Lashon Hara. I'm not sure why any of it was posted.

m in Israel

Tue, Sep 09 2014, 7:19 am

the world's best mom wrote:

A- Why is this woman so eager to get married all of a sudden? She's been living with the new guy for years already and they have 4 children together- so why get married at all?

It seems like the woman has wanted to get married all along, but it was only now that the family agreed to allow her to do chalitzah (for the cost of 20,000 nis). (Until this point it was clear that she couldn't get married because of the lack of chalitzah, but now she thought she could because the chalitzah was done.) Once the chalitzah was done she went to get married and only that is when the second issue came up -- that of whether she can Halachically marry a man whom she was together with before doing yibum. Apparently this is not allowed by many poskim, and this BD ruled that in her case it is problematic. (Again, I don't know the halachic factors)

FranticFrummie

Tue, Sep 09 2014, 7:22 am

the world's best mom wrote:

If the deceased husband's family is going to be nasty about money, then the bride's family could ask for all the wedding expenses back for them selling their daughter a "sick son".

Greed has no place in Yiddishkeit, IMHO. These days, justice seems to be all about the shekels. Crying

the world's best mom

Tue, Sep 09 2014, 7:28 am

m in Israel wrote:

Okay, but not being married hasn't changed her life much. She lived as if she was married. So why would she even want to pay all that money for the chalitzah? What value does being married have if she can live with her mate anyway?

Tablepoetry

Tue, Sep 09 2014, 7:31 am

I can't believe some of the responses here.
You have no idea if the woman is guilty of anything. You are accusing her with no proof whatsoever. Isn't that a big aveira?
Anyway, it doesn't matter if she's guilty or not. That needs to be fought in another court. Nothing to do with her right to remarry.
And it's none of anybodys business why she decided to get married after four kids. It seems she wanted to get married right away, but didnt want to pay 200000 nis for it. In israeli terms, that could easily be 3-4 years salary.
Why should she even pay a penny for the right to remarry?
So judaism gives not only husbands the right to extort women, but also their brothers and fathers??????
I am always aghast how there are loopholes for things like shabbat elevators, but not for this.

the world's best mom

Tue, Sep 09 2014, 7:34 am

FranticFrummie wrote:

I would hardly call them nasty or greedy if they want some sort of payback for the loss of their son. And I'm assuming that either he wasn't sick when they got married, or that she knew he was sick. It doesn't seem like buys into the Shidduch system where a lot of your knowledge of the guy comes from what people choose to tell you about him. His family owes her nothing, but they feel she murdered their son via neglect. Their feelings and actions toward her cannot be rational if that's what she did. Have some mercy for the poor family whose son's life was cut so short by his wife. Cut them some slack.

Oh, and stop criticizing the Bais Din for following their interpretation of Halacha. They did nothing wrong- many hold that if she had children with him before the Chalitzah then she can't marry him. They're not being cruel, they're doing their job.

morah

Tue, Sep 09 2014, 7:35 am

the world's best mom wrote:

But why do you so quickly assume the family was right and the woman really did withhold medical treatment? Maybe the family was just so grief stricken they needed someone to blame for their tragedy.

SRS

Tue, Sep 09 2014, 7:35 am

the world's best mom wrote:

A- Why is this woman so eager to get married all of a sudden? She's been living with the new guy for years already and they have 4 children together- so why get married at all?

Marriage and cohabitation are two completely different entities and woman are well served by marriage and the protections that it offers to them and their children. The story is confusing to me, so I have no further comment on it. But when it comes to living together versus marriage, marriage is an important institution and cannot be replaced for its benefits by other arrangements.

the world's best mom

Tue, Sep 09 2014, 7:40 am

Tablepoetry wrote:

I never said she is guilty. I said what his family is claiming, which nobody else seems to have noticed. IF they are correct, we could hardly blame them. If they are wrong, then they are very wrong. But my guess is that they are basing their claim on something legitimate. True, that needs to be fought in another court.

I am not saying his family is right. I'm saying that they are not acting rational because they believe this person murdered their son, and we can at least feel their pain.

And I'm also saying that making the Bais Din look like fools is totally wrong. They are not fools- they are following Halacha. She's the one who didn't follow Halacha.

Frumdoc

Tue, Sep 09 2014, 7:43 am

the world's best mom wrote:

I would imagine that she always wanted to be married, but accepted the situation as a worst case scenario, rather than remain alone from the age of 29, forever disallowed from having children or a husband by a 200,000 shekel "fine/bribe/payment" she was being blackmailed her chalitza/ freedom for, and eventually paying 20,000 shekel for. So she paid them for her freedom, implies that it did mean a great deal to her: 20,000 shekels worth is not a drop in the ocean.

Most people who end up in such situations would not have chosen them in a million years, but do not necessarily have the religious belief system that enables them to accept their life as an agunah equivalent, a lonely sad widow, never allowed toget married or have children, because of financial allegations. They prioritise their own happiness in this world over the bet din and laws that stop them having a family and a life.

In my view, she was enormously let down by the courts in the first place for enabling this situation to develop and persist, and this is a double whammy - no wonder people do not respect or follow mainstream orthodox judaism when they get treated like this by the rabbinical courts.

the world's best mom

Tue, Sep 09 2014, 7:45 am

morah wrote:

But why do you so quickly assume the family was right and the woman really did withhold medical treatment? Maybe the family was just so grief stricken they needed someone to blame for their tragedy.

Maybe. But again, my point is that his family may or may not be wrong, but Bais din is not wrong. Saying Lashon Harah about the Bais Din is definitely wrong. Having children out of wedlock is definitely against Halacha. We have reason to think it's quite possible his family is not so wrong, but we can't say the same about her.

If she is innocent of causing her husband's death, then we do need to feel bad for her. But if she is guilty, I don't feel one bit bad. And either way, leave the Bais Din out of it. It's not their fault. It's still her fault for living with him against Halacha.