Ruling of the Presidents of the Rabbinical Court: What is the point of a bathroom for a ketubah fee?

The Regional Rabbinical Court in Petah Tikva and the Great Rabbinical Court of Appeals, composed of three presidents, were called upon to address a weighty issue - who is responsible for repairing the bathtub in a dispute between two spouses?

The woman claimed that she and her children were forced to shower for over six months using a "paila" - a tub, due to her husband's refusal to call a plumber for repairs.

The married life of the two couples from the mother colonies was characterized by severe quarrels and mutual hatred, and they decided to divorce. At one point, the husband filed a divorce suit with the rabbinical court, accusing his wife of being a rebel and of not maintaining a family life, and therefore refused to give her the ketubah money.

The woman denied this and claimed that the divorce was a result of his behavior.

The Petah Tikva court accepted the woman's claims that she was forced to shower with her children in a bathtub, while the husband ignored the difficulty involved. At the same time, the court accepted the husband's claims of verbal violence by the wife, which was supported by testimonies.

The members of the regional rabbinical court in Petah Tikva - Rabbi Yigal Lerer, Rabbi Ariel Yanai and Rabbi Ben Zion Rabin - decided that "this is a bitter and difficult conflict in which both parties were involved, some more and some less, which led to a divorce by mutual consent. Therefore, both parties are in rebellion against each other and the husband should not be obligated to sign a ketubah."

The woman appealed this to the Great Rabbinical Court, which heard the appeal with the three presidents of the court - Chief Rabbi David Lau, who recently completed his term, Rabbi Eliezer Igra, who was the acting president of the court until about two weeks ago, and the current acting president, Rabbi Michael Amos - which is their joint ruling.

The three sat and discussed the ketubah and bathhouse case for long hours. They reviewed rulings from the first and last - from the Shulchan Aruch to contemporary rabbis, such as Rabbi Elyashiv, and ultimately decided: "In the case of Didan, since it was the woman who insisted on the necessity of the divorce more than the man who agreed to peace under certain conditions, therefore the court determines that the husband should not be obligated to pay the ketubah. The appeal was dismissed and the ruling of the regional rabbinical court remained in effect."