Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Rabbinic court permits "divorcee" to marry Cohen

Ynet   Jewish law states unequivocally that a Cohen cannot marry a divorced woman, but there are exceptions. The Tel Aviv Rabbinical Court last week ruled that it would approve the divorce of two people who married in a civil service in the US – but that the divorce would not interfere with the woman's marriage to a Cohen.

Israeli law determines that the act of divorce between two people must go through the Rabbinical Court. The couple married in January 2006 in a ceremony with a Christian judge, in the presence of the bride, the groom, and one of the bride's friends. 

Both sides and their relatives testified that they were told the marriage was for the purpose of getting the woman a work visa in the US. The couple lived together for four months.  

Now the couple sought to end their marriage and define themselves as divorcees – without the husband giving her a 'Get' (Jewish divorce document). The woman testified that she has been in a relationship with a Cohen for over a year and that she wishes to marry him according to Jewish tradition. The husband also stated that if he were to marry in the future he would choose to marry according to Jewish tradition.

In light of the circumstances, the court decided to respond to the couple's request. The Dayanim ruled that the woman's request to marry a Cohen meant that she was in the halachic state of 'Shaat Dachak' (time of distress) where it is possible to facilitate their request and enact a divorce without a 'Get.'


  1. Can you post that actual psak with all the sources please?

    1. I would love to see the original - the report on YNET is really bizarre and makes no sense

    2. Why do you even repost YNET stories? They have no credibility.

  2. Please explain why it isn't believable. Everyone know that it is always eaisier to be machmir then to be maykil so why not explain why this isn't posible

  3. there are many cases these days of a divorcee / giyoret marrying a cohen, with chuppa ve'kiddushin. (note -- if the previous couple didnt live together to the general (jewish) public as husband and wife, (i.e., only for citizenship purposes) it would be very little problem.)

    the problem today is that even r rackman z"l, when he did his controversial hafka'at kiddushin (which the ynet article seems to be), would not allow the ex wife to marry a cohen. but today, there are cases of such hafka'at kiddushin, (where the ex wife refuses to even work out a regular divorce agreememt) and she later marries a cohen. that is the real halachic problem.

  4. כנראה שהאשה ביקשה לקבל אישור נישואין מהרבנות כדי להינשא לכהן. שבית דין סמך על כך שהנישואין ברה"ב היו רק נישואי ערכאות, ולכן האשה אינה נחשבת כאשת איש, ולכן אינה זקוקה לגט.

    אלא שיש דין, דגבי כהן אפילו אם היה אצל האשה רק "ריח הגט" כבר אין מתירין אותה לינשא לכהן. כאן נכנס בית הדין להקל מטעמי "שעת הדחק".

  5. I too would like to see the psak, but it is not that hard to make out the basis. The first marriage was a civil marriage. They ruled that acc. to halakha it was not a kiddushin. Ample sources for that proposition. That means that acc. to the Torah she was never married, and hence cannot becom a gerushah.

    However, since in Israel the rabbinate acts as the civil authority, they have to grant her a civil divorce to undo the civil marriage. So they granted her a civil "divorce." (What a secular court in the U.S. would do.)


    Civil marriage in the US which was for the purpose of getting the woman a green card is very unlikely to have the woman defined as halachtic married


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.