Man Must Pay Ex-Wife $60,000 After Admitting Sex Without Ritual Bath

Jerusalem's Grand Rabbinical Court has ordered a man to pay his ex-wife NIS 217,000 (approximately $60,000) in ketubah (marriage contract) payment. The ruling came after the man admitted during proceedings that he had maintained a sexual relationship with his wife for years without her having immersed in a mikveh (ritual bath), contradicting his own defense that her refusal to immerse had ruined the marriage and voided her ketubah rights.

The couple married in 1999 and have four children. The husband underwent a religious transformation about 14 years ago, while his wife and children remained secular. This led to disputes over Shabbat observance and television use in the bedroom. They lived in separate rooms for about 13 years and separately for the last four. The wife filed for divorce in March 2024, seeking the NIS 500,000 ketubah, citing years of physical and verbal abuse. The husband denied the abuse, claiming the police complaints were false and that his wife initiated the separation and refused marital counseling.

The lower rabbinical court had initially dismissed the ketubah claim in May 2025, ruling that the wife had not proven life-threatening or even regular violence and that she should have warned her husband before seeking a restraining order. The court accepted the husband's version regarding the mikveh, reasoning that a religiously observant man would not engage in forbidden relations and therefore must have asked his wife to immerse, which she refused. This led to the conclusion that the wife caused the marital breakdown, forfeiting her ketubah.

During an appeal, the husband was questioned about how two children were born after his religious return if his wife never immersed. He admitted to having relations without her immersion, explaining his religious observance was gradual and he couldn't abstain. Based on this confession, the Grand Rabbinical Court overturned the lower court's decision. The court stated that the assumption that a religious person wouldn't violate a severe prohibition was invalid for someone who admitted to doing so. It also ruled that the husband should have tried to persuade his wife to immerse or sought court intervention, and by not doing so, "he has only himself to blame."

Regarding the violence claims, the Grand Court found the lower court's requirement for a prior warning to be improperly applied. It noted that welfare reports repeatedly described severe domestic violence, recommended camera installations, and that the husband had been convicted of violence against their son. The court stated that violence against a child generally indicates violence against the mother. The husband's claim of hitting their son for educational purposes was contradicted by his admission in court. Significant weight was given to his statement before the divorce: "Absolutely not, but I am not willing to give a get (divorce document) until she gives up the ketubah, I am not returning to live with you under any circumstances."

The court determined that a husband unwilling to reconcile cannot evade ketubah payments, and the wife cannot be seen as refusing to live with him when he himself does not want her. The ketubah amount was reduced from NIS 500,000 to NIS 320,000, considering the lower court's assessment, concerns about an excessive amount, and the wife's settlement offers. After deducting NIS 103,000 owed to her from property division, the remainder is to be paid within 60 days.

Family law expert Ronen Daliahu commented that the ruling corrects two common perceptions: first, that a wife causing a husband to violate a prohibition automatically loses her ketubah, and second, that a wife filing for divorce automatically forfeits her ketubah. He clarified that a husband who knowingly continues relations cannot later use the non-immersion as a defense, and that filing for divorce due to distress does not forfeit the ketubah, especially when the husband has not attempted reconciliation.