According to M.L. On the wedding night it was obvious that he was depressed, and upon her asking how he felt he replied that indeed he was anxious and depressed. Even in the first weeks of their marriage she noticed extremely unusual behavior including mental and physical abuse towards her. His unusual activities included attempted suicide (in June 2011 before the marriage) staying in the house without gainful employment, sleeping the entire day and drug abuse. In fact he was admitted into a mental health institution in the summer of 2011. It became clear that this behavior was a result of his psychological illness. After consulting several psychiatrist psychologists and other mental health professionals it was clear that his illness was not a passing phase but a permanent condition that was.

The plaintiff claims that his behavior is a result of mental illness which preceded the marriage as well. The mental illness was known to the defendant as he went to therapy both to psychiatrists and psychologists before the marriage. The consistent drug abuse had also preceded the marriage and these facts were concelaed before the marriage.  

2. The Beit Din has been provided with a medical record diagnosing the husband with a  severe mental illness that existed at least two years prior to the marriage. Other unusual behavior included disappearing for a few weeks after their engagement without notifying his fiance as to his whereabouts, breaking into the house of Henry Kissinger and even running in the streets unclothed. (the latter is one of the hallmarks of a mentally incompetent in the Talmud)

3. The plaintiff turned to the Bet Din of America who summoned the husband to a din torah. That Bet Din obligated the husband to give a gett but he refused and The Bet Din of America gave its approval to the International Beit Din to pick up the matter where it was left off. This grants the International Beit Din authority to deal with this matter and there is no need to send an additional summons to the husband. So too the state of igun creates a pressing matter and allows the Beit Din to judge this case without the husband being present.

Nullification of the Marriage by finding of a Major Fault in the Husband

The mishna and gmara( starting on ketubot 72b) relates a case of a man that betroths a woman on the condition that she has no faults (literally blemishes) and then it is found that she has some makjor faults. The gmara does not have a parallel discussion about faults in the husband. Because of this disparity some authorities conclude that a woman always prefers a married state and therefore would not cancell the marriage because of faults in the husband. These authorities seem to eliminate the  possibility of declaring the kiddushin null because of a fault. In short the claim of “mistaken transaction” is not effective for the wife. In fact Rav Henkin a major authority in the US in the first half of 20th century holds stridnetly that there can be no claim of mistaken transaction by the wife.

However other authorities have held otherwise. In the gmara (ketubot 77a-b) the gmara deliniates different faults which grant a woman a right to demand a divorce. The Bet Shmuel writes that the mishna is only speaking when the faults happened after the marriage or the woman knew of them at the time of the marriage. But if they pre-existed the marriage and were unknown to her at the time the kiddushin is a mistaken transaction. More recent authorities have questioned the Ber Shmuel- if indeed there is a mistaken transaction why do we need to force a gett? Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank explains that in cases of minor faults there is a doubt whether there is a mistkaen transaction so a gett is required

“l’humra” (to remove all doubt) but in cases of moajor faults no gett is required.

In conclusion there is sufficient support to rely on the Bet shmuel’s opinion and many rabbinic courts in Israel have ruled. This included courts with the Sefardi Cheif Rabbi Yitzchack Yosef and the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Lau and other senior appeals court in Israel.

The IBD sent three requests to to the husband to appear before the beit din but they were all ignored. Afterwards we obligated the husband to give a gett without any conditions but he refused to abide by the beit din’s instructions and refuses to grant his wife a gett recognized by halacha.

We spared no effort to research the facts and the halacha in this case and with heavenly guidance we were able to release this woman from the chains of igun and permit this woman to marry another. The halachic decision in our opinion is clear obvious and without any hesitation.

The marriage ceremony was indeed a Jewish one but it was conducted by the director of a temple belonging to the Reconstruction wing of Judaism. Reconstructionist Judaism is a liberal wing which does not believe in Judaism as a religion but rather relates to it as a culture. Many do not believe in a G-d or certainly not a personal G-d and do not believe  the giving of the Torah at Sinai was a historical event or that the halacha is binding. As such their ceremony is quite distinct from one which would be recognized halachically. One of fact which arose was the family of the groom there was a custom to use the ring of his grandmother. This ring was used at all the ceremonies and was immediately returned to the grandmother at the end of the ceremony. The ring never belonged to the husband and was never given to the bride. There is a dispute among authorities about a borrowed ring and the efficacy for kiddushin but in this case there was never any level of ownership at all and certainly no intent to transfer that ownership to the bride. Simply speaking halacha demands a ring that is owned by the husband to transfer that ownership to the bride. Neither of these demands were met in any possible definition.

In addition there is an independent requirement of two acceptable witnesses that witness the kiddushin ceremony. These witnesses, by halachic standards, need to be male adult and observant of the halacha. We checked the pictures and video of the wedding and there were no acceptable witnesses present. All of those present under the huppa were either close relatives of the bride or groom, non- observant Jews or not Jewish at all. Even the director told us that he does not require witnesses and when the couple requests it he is never careful that they be halachically acceptable. The Director himself told us that he is not observant and does not believe in the historical veracity of the Torah.

For all these reasons the decision of the Great arbiter of halacha in our generation Harav Moshe Feinstein took the position in numerous opinions that Reform marriage is null and void halachically and has no power to create a halachic marriage.

Therefore the woman K. was never considered married by the rules of halacha and she is therefore allowed to marry anyone even a cohen (who is prohibited to marry a divorcee) in consonance with the rulings of Rav Moshe Feinstein.

There are certain other issues which need to be ruled out in order to solidify this opinion. The Hatam Sofer ruled that even if the witnesses under the huppa were disqualified the commonly held knowledge (literally we are witnesses). The Hatam Sofer position is novel as the role of witnesses in kiddushin is not only as a proof but in fact they are crucial to validate the kiddushin. A kidduishin without witnesses is not valid so it is hard to understand how common knowledge can replace the formal requirement of witnesses. Therefore many authorities reject the Hatam sofer’s position as is well documented by the eminent Rabbi Walldenberg.

In addition it is clear that if the kiddushin was not valid for other reasons (such as lack of intent by the bride and groom or lack of ownership of the ring) then the “common knowledge” argument clearly fails. Also the “common knowledge only exists if there is a competent orthodox Rabbi conversant with halacha. In a Restructionist temple there is no presumption of a halachically binding ceremnoy and therefore there is no “common knowledge. So too Israeli Rabbinic courts have ruled that in cases of reform or civil marriages the common knowledge argument is not cogent. Also the argument of “common knowledge” if among the assembled are observant Jews, in a Reconstructionist Temple it is likely that there are no two acceptable witnesses so that argument is inapplicable in this case.

The halachic efficacy of continual civil marriage.

Even if there is no formal halachic kiddushin and Reconstructionist marital ceremony is not binding we still are aware that the couple lived together as man and wife for several years. Another question that we have to address is whether such arrangements create a halachic marriage. The Rivash (14th century authority from Barcelona) quotes a dispute between the Rambam and other Geonim in the following case. Where two people have intercourse does one assume since a person does not want to be sexually wanton he intends the sexual relations to be an act of kiddushin. (In addition to giving of an object of value to the bride there are two other methods of kiddushin via written contract or sexual relations). The Rambam rejects the argument and restricts the assumption mentioned in the gmara to a subset of cases. (particularly when the couple was previously married and divorced and not any two people). The Rivash then continues and argues that the position of the Rambam certainly holds when there is a civil or non- Jewish ceremony. The existence of a non- Jewish ceremony (or non halachic) shows that the couple is not interested in creating a halachic marriage. Particularly in a time and place where a halachic marriage was readily available and the couple , for whatever reason, opted out. In addition the whole presumption that a person does not not want to engage in extramarital relations does not apply to a non observant couple.

In addition the Rivash adds that even according to the Geonim who are stringent it is only if there are witnesses that can attest that they were alone together for the purpose of relations and that does not typically happen.

To sum up the Rivash rejects civil or any non-halachic marriage for three reasons.

1] If the couple choose a non halachic option we should assume that they do not wish a kiddushin by halacha.

2] A non observant couple has no presumption that they would not engage in extra-marital relations.

3] There were no witnesses to testify they were alone.

This is all even if we accept the position of the Geonim which the Rambam vigorously disputes.

Another reason to reject the possible stringency is that the fact that the divorce was filed civilly without any intent to give a gett that shows that they never intended to create a halachic marriage. While it is unreasonable to cancel a marriage that was definitely halachic in this reason for a marriage that we have grounds to believe was not performed halachically the subsequent behavior of the couple should be considered.

In addition as some have noted that in this permissive society most couples live together for a period before marriage with no intent to create a marriage. So the whole assumption that one does not intend to have extra-marital relations is ludicrous.

Also even the Rabbinic courts in Israel that were stringent in the matter of civil marriage only did so as an extra stringency but in a case of igun they did not insist on a gett.

The issue of the halachic validity of civil marriages was a topic of rabbinic debate in the period before World War Two. Rabbi Yosef Razin (commonly referred to as the Rogotchaver or the genius from Rogotchav) held that there were two aspects of marriage, halachically. A halachic status of the woman as an אשת איש a woman married. In addition there is a relational aspect of being someones wife(קנין אישות). The civil marriage does not create the formal halachic status of אשת איש on the woman but a relationship (קנין) is created that bars her from remarrying without a gett. A similar argument developed in the 20th century between two halachic greats Rav Henkin, who held stringently that even those that are civilly wed need and gett and Rav Moshe Feinstein who held that no gett was necessary. This question became very serious and common after the collapse of the Iron Curtain many women married civilly came to the U.S. and Israel without a gett. The broad consensus opinion was not to require a gett although some batei din preferred to deliver a gett if possible.

As a Rabbi in St. Louis Missouri the Head Rabbi of Jerusalem at the time Rav Zholty visited the town and I asked him the law in this matter. And he stated definitively that in Israel the broad and obvious ruling is not to require a gett and this ruling is seen as quite obvious and trivial. (He compared it to making a hamotzi on a piece of bread. )

Parenthetically a decision written by Rav Dichovsky in 2003 recognizing the halachic validity of civil divorce should be seen as an attempt to bring under the juristiction of the Rabbinic courts civil marriage and not to see it as a novel halachic approach or an attempt to upend the precedents on this mattter.

It became clear to Esther that Abraham will continie to refuse to  give her a gett and so she turned to the IBD. Esther was notified that Abraham infected here with a sexually transmitted disease commonly called  Human papillomavirus or in the shortened version HPV. Abraham was apparently infected with the virus at the time of their marriage and therefore Esther is asking if that is grounds to nullify the marriage.

Before we determine the question whether infection with HPV is a major fault( מום גדול) the question is whether any sexually transmitted disease would constitute a major fault (מומם גדול) that would be grounds to force a gett

The grounds for divorce because of a major fault are enumerated in several places in the Talmud. The question arises are there additional grounds or the list is defined and limited to those mentioned in the gmara. Here the Rosh seems to contradict himself in one ruling he claims it is a closed list and in another he allows for an expansion. It would seem that the list can be expanded to a case that is similar to those mentioned. Other grounds that we might assume would be substantial fault and cause most partners to object should not be added if there is no similar precedent on the list.

Included in the list are serious  life threatening illnesses and therefore it is safe to assume that any  life threatening illness is considered grounds for divorce. Some authorities add additional stipulations in order for an illness to be added as grounds for divorce

1] Contagiousness- that the illness poses a threat to the wife as well.

2] That the woman cannot stand to be in the presence of an individual with the disease.

It is not surprising then that many authorities conclude that having AIDS and infecting his wife with HIV is sufficient grounds fro divorce.

However if the disease is not contagious there should be no grounds for divorce.  

In conclusion if an STD is present in one of the partners if it

1] Is dangerous

2] Contagiousness

3] Creates a feeling of disgust

that is grounds for divorce. If one of the conditions is unmet then it remains a dispute between the authorities.

Mistaken Transaction.

In general any transaction that requires consent such as buying or selling that is done based on a mistaken premise is not valid. The gmara seems not to apply this rule to kiddushin. Some authorities believe that the reason for the omission is because the beit din could always force a gett  and therefore the woman prefers the marriage to be valid as she always can leave the mariage by petitioning the beit din for a gett. Since that possibility is not viable now they conclude that in cases of major faults of the husband the wife can claim the transaction was in error and therefore null and void. Others claim that kiddushin is an exception to the rule of mistaken transaction since there is an assumption of “tav lmeitav tan du” that a woman will always or at least usually prefer to be married than single. Some view this claim as a definitive claim some hold it true on a doubtful level ( since it might be true the woman needs a gett to remove the doubt) and some hold it is true only on rabbinic level. The IBD thinks that the first position is held by many authorities and shuld be followed. Hence in any case of a major fault that was not known to the women at the time of kiddushin the wedding is null and void.

As far as AIDS it would seem that it should be included in a “major fault” and should be enough to invalidate a marriage.

The gmara posits that while doing a mitzvah one will not be harmed. Some authorities conclude that since having marital relations is a  mitzva one needn’t be concerned about contagious diseases. Some authorities believe that marital relations are not considered a mitzva to apply this rule.  Other authorities limit this conclusion by limiting the original rule to supernatural dangers but not to naturally occurring dangers. Likewise when the danger is likely the rule does not apply either. It would seem that through all the stipulations and limitations that AIDS would certainly be a major fault to define the marriage as a mistaken transaction and therefore invalid.

Now to the matter on hand that is the HPV illness. Certainly since the HPV is not harmful or dangerous one cannot define it as a major fault. However it is possible that Abraham was infected with other forms of HPV which increase the danger of cervical cancer which is certainly dangerous. Those HPV strains would certainly be considered a major fault. Rav Shmuel Vitali ruled on a case where there is only a possibility of contagion as a major fault. So to strains of HPV should be considered a major fault.

However in order to nullify a marriage through a claim of mistaken transaction one needs to fulfill three requirements.

1] That a major fault in the husband exists

2] That this fault was unknown to the wife at the time of the marriage.

3] That the wife left the husband upon the finding of the “fault”.

There is a difference of opinion whether the leaving has to be done immediately upon finding the fault or can be claimed some time after. In this case however the IBD does not need to take a position on that question as Esther continued to have relations with her husband even after she found out about the HPV. So we can assume that she accepted this fault and waived her right to cancel the marriage based on the faulty transaction claim.

As we mentioned in our original remarks we have obligated the husband to give a gett to Esther but we view the marriage as being valid.