If you’re familiar with my perspective on Israel’s Rabbinic courts—and the broader family law system—you know I often view them critically. That said, this particular case stands out as an exception, and I believe the Dayanim (religious court judges) got it right. It’s hard to understand why someone who signs a prenuptial agreement with a non-Jewish partner would assume that a subsequent conversion and Jewish wedding would nullify that agreement—especially when there’s significant income involved. Read my summary below and feel free to share your thoughts.

The Dayanim (Religious Court Judges) of a Rabbinical Court of Law, resolved that the husband – a wealthy businessman enjoying an exorbitant income, was the party who had initiated the divorce, and therefore would be obligated to pay his wife her Dmei ketubah (the amount of money to be given a wife in accordance with her Jewish wedding contract), in the amount of 260,000 NIS.

The wife did not waive the Dmei ketubah and maintained that she was also entitled to receive the indemnification stated in the financial agreement signed prior to their civil marriage, several years before to the couple’s religious marriage in the Rabbinate, and which stated that she was entitled to 50,000 NIS for each year of marriage.

The spouses married civilly because the woman was not Jewish, and prior to this marriage they signed the monetary agreement. During the course of next few years the woman converted to Judaism, and the couple were married again by the Rabbinate. This second marriage ceremony was accompanied by the signing of a ketubah (Jewish wedding contract) by the husband for the amount of 260,000 NIS.

Approximately one year thereafter, the husband resolved to divorce in light of many police complaints filed against him by the wife.

The woman even demonstrated that the husband had been habitually cheating on her, and that for this reason he had even tied up his sperm ducts so as to prevent his mistresses from becoming pregnant.

The husband argued that the moment the couple had been married by the Rabbinate, he intended that the sum in the ketubah should serve as a substitute to the divorce compensation in the financial agreement, and therefore should be offset against the compensation amount.

The Dayanim stressed that the custom to offset the property balancing payments from the ketubah results from the fact that upon divorce husbands will not consent to pay both sums. However, this is not the case in this instance where the husband is a financial tycoon, earning an income in the top thousand’s percentile, and therefore who could easily manage to pay both the ketubah together with the originally consented compensation.

Therefore, the Dayanim decided that the defendant should pay the Plaintiff her ketuba charge in the amount of 260,000 NIS, and that it should not be offset against the compensations established in the financial agreement.