- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
142
Ruling: The regional court did not claim jurisdiction because of the rule that the place of adjudication follows the place of the defendant (Rama, Choshen Mishpat 14:1). This, they claim, relates not to jurisdiction per se, which might be impacted by citizenship, but to geographical concerns. Regarding enforceability, if the couple signs an arbitration agreement, it should be enforceable and potential difficulty should not make a difference if there are not indications to expect it (see Tosafot, Sanhedrin 31b). The Supreme Rabbinical Court heard the appeal.
The set courts in Israel, in comparison to a beit din abroad that is not set, can be compared to the gemara’s (Sanhedrin 31b) statement that a lender can force a borrower to go with him to the beit hava’ad (respected regional court). Rav Yisraeli discussed at length whether only a lender can force a borrower or whether anyone who can substantiate reasonable claims can make a defendant go to the more respected court. In the final analysis, since the Rambam limits the ability to force going to the beit hava’ad, pl cannot force def to go to Israel on these grounds.
The main argument between pl and def is whether def is required to continue support when pl left their joint place of residence. Rav Yisraeli reasoned that since the obligation to support one’s wife is a set obligation and def will have to prove this case is an exception to the rule, he is in regard to this matter like a plaintiff. Since, he reasons, the idea of going to the defendant’s place is a matter of natural justice, the onus is on the one who is initiating a change. Rav Goldschmidt and Rav Ovadia Yosef countered that the rule is that a woman who refuses to live with her husband does not receive support. While she will receive it if she can prove that she was justified in separating, she is a plaintiff regarding the prospect of proving that she fits into the exception of women who deserve support when not living at home.
However, there is another reason to have the case in Israel, which the three distinguished dayanim agreed to, albeit with slightly different nuances. Pl and def are citizens of the State of Israel, who continue to have a connection to Israel because they have a home in Tel Aviv, plan to return, and receive some salary through an Israeli company connected to the government. Thus, when the courts in Israel do not feel that the level of accountability that the ad hoc beit din abroad would provide suffices, the laws of the State of Israel that give the Rabbanut courts jurisdiction take precedence over the preference to follow the place of the defendant. The dayanim considered this to be true in this case.

P'ninat Mishpat (781)
Various Rabbis
271 - Joint Responsibility Through
272 - To Adjudicate in Israel or In the Defendant’s City?
273 - Leprosy as Grounds for Divorce
Load More

P'ninat Mishpat: How Much Was Agreed to Pay for Renovations?
based on ruling 84054 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Kislev 5784

P'ninat Mishpat: A Used Car with a Tendency for Engine Problems
based on ruling 84034 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Iyar 5784

P'ninat Mishpat: Amounts and Conditions of Payment to an Architect – part II
based on ruling 83061 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Sivan 5785

Not Completed and Imperfect Renovation Job – part II
based on ruling 83063 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Elul 5784
Shemot
Rabbi Berel Wein | 5769

Begetting Someone Else’s Sons
Parashat Bemidbar
From the Chemdat Yamim Leaflet
The Crowns of Jerusalem
Rabbi Zalman Baruch Melamed | Iyar 5763

“In the Name of the Lord, The Creator of the World“
The Mishne Torah Project
Rabbi Yohai Makbili | 5775
