She admits cheating, they refuse to believe
A woman appears before rabbinic court, says she has not been faithful to her husband, and judges do not believe her. Why? They suspect she is lying. Why would she lie? Because she wants a divorce
In addition to this, even when the wife admits that she cheated on her husband, it is possible that the court - and also her husband - will not believe her. Strange? Indeed, but after you hear the explanation, matters may appear different.
There are times when a woman wants a divorce and the husband refuses. Sometimes because he loves her. Perhaps more often because he loves her money. Not any less often because he wants revenge.
There are times when a woman will admit to the rabbinic court that she has had an affair. She will do this so that the judges will force her husband to divorce her. Because, as was written previously, according to Jewish law a man cannot stay married to an unfaithful wife.
This gamble does not always work. The judges know that sometimes a woman will admit to an affair that did not occur, and therefore they will not believe her admission. Why? “perhaps she has set her eyes on another” is an expression that appears often in Halakhic literature. The judges, and the husband, are liable to claim that the woman has fallen for someone else, and in order to expedite the divorce is willing to accuse herself of something she did not do.
What does the court do in such cases? It needs additional evidence to strengthen the woman’s claim: testimony by the man with whom she claims she had the affair, more witnesses, etc.
If the husband tells the judges that he believes his wife’s confession, that is usually enough to determine that he should divorce her. If he accepts her words, she is now forbidden to him, as if two witnesses proved the adultery.
A note with the lover’s name is kept
After the rabbinic court is convinced that the woman is now forbidden to the man with whom she had the affair, they will note it on the document issued with the divorce. The lover’s name is written on the same document. This note is kept on the computer at the Religious Ministry, and if the woman comes with that man to the Religious Authority to get married - that note will prevent their application.
Court case 212/74 discusses the matter of a woman who admitted in front of the court that she got pregnant from an affair that she had while she was married. The judges instructed that the divorce document include a “restricting section”, that according to her testimony she cannot marry her lover. The woman appealed to the Supreme Court, who instructed to erase the note on the divorce document.
Judge Zussman wrote, “While indeed a woman is forbidden to marry the man she had an affair with while married, we should not mark that she is forbidden to marry, so that the adultery will not be publicized”.
The court added, that it is possible that the woman will have to present her divorce document to different authorities, such as the National Insurance, or when she is looking for work, and a note of her adultery “is a violation of her privacy and humiliating. Certainly we should not note the name of the man, who was not a litigant in the divorce case”.
Sometimes, if the judges are not sure if the woman really committed adultery, and they have only been convinced that there is some suspicious connection between her and a specific man, they note on the verdict that if she wants to marry the man whose name appeared during the proceedings - a legal clarification has to be made whether she can be allowed to marry him.
Do you have to tell her husband?
Jewish law has often dealt with cases involving infidelity. What happens, for example, if a man finds out that a certain woman has not been faithful to her husband - does the law obligate him to tell the husband? The question arises, since the husband, as we said, cannot continue living with his wife, and in order to prevent this sin, the person who knows of the affair may be obligated to report it to the husband.
A surprising case occurred 200 years ago. The anomaly of the case is that the man who was debating whether he should inform the husband was the lover itself. And if this was not enough, this same man married the daughter of the woman with whom he was having an affair. In case you’re not confused enough, here is the crux of the matter: Does the groom have to tell his father-in-law that he had an affair with his mother-in-law? Understood?
One of the great rabbis of the 18th century, Rabbi Yechezkel Landau, who dealt with this case, wrote in his book “Hanode Beyehuda” (This was brought down in Tomer Moskowitz’s article “Full Disclosure and its Limitations”):
“One committed adultery for three years and now has atoned for his sin…Now he wants to know, now that he is her son-in-law, since he married her daughter, is he obligated to tell his father-in-law that he should divorce his adulterous wife or if he should keep quiet”
Rabbi Landau adds that the man is deliberating since the family was respectable and of high standing, and the couple has other children who are Torah scholars, and in order not to harm them, he has to decide if the former-lover present- son-in-law, who has atoned, can keep quiet. The rabbi’s answer was: “The man has to tell the woman’s husband, that his wife committed adultery, and he has to divorce her”.
David, Bat Sheba and the prohibition of marriage
An interesting historical aspect of this matter was investigated by the Justice Minister, Professor Daniel Friedman, in his book, “Have You Murdered and Taken Possession”: The Biblical story (Samuel II) on David and Bat Sheba.
A quick reminder: One night King David was walking on the roof, and saw Bat Sheba - and the click was heard throughout the kingdom. The story gets complicated because Bat Sheba, who was married to Uriyah, became pregnant with David, who sent her husband to the battlefield where he was killed. Afterwards David married the widow.
Since then the Sages of Israel have tried to explain this story. Some of them have tried to soften David’s actions. “According to Hebraic law”, writes Professor Friedman, “ which forbids a woman to her husband and lover, David would not be allowed to marry Bat Sheba after Uriyah’s death.
In order to prevent this result, the Aggadic tradition has held that each of David’s warriors, before they went out to war, would divorce his wife, on the condition that if he died in battle his wife would retroactively be divorced from the day he went out to war”.
One can imagine that the widespread permissiveness in Israeli society will create many varied cases in the future that will yield a fascinating ruling on this subject.
