The ruling in the case of "the adulterous woman and division of assets" has sparked a great deal of public debate, most of it unjustified. We can glean two important points from the ruling and the public responses. The first is that conservatives in Israel don't criticize the Supreme Court enough.
As a reminder, the Israeli Supreme Court last week upheld a ruling by the rabbinical court that a woman who cheated on her husband is not entitled to half the value of the house the two had lived in. In doing so, the court overturned a ruling from 25 years ago, which determined that in a divorce dispute over assets, a rabbinical court must abide by civil law, which does not allow infidelity to be brought into the case.
Supreme Court President Esther Hayut recently discussed the "unprecedented attack" that is "threatening the independence of the judiciary." Perceptive people noted that Hayut wasn't referring to the harsh personal attacks against Justice Yael Willner for the Khan al-Ahmar case; or against Justice Noam Sohlberg who was labeled an "international criminal" – or the well-oiled media attack on the lower courts for their handling of the case of BDS activist Lara Alqasem.
But these attacks did in fact harm the judiciary's independence. As a result of the rulings in question, the Supreme Court consistently overstepped its authority. It held unorthodox additional hearings in the case of the evacuation of Khan al-Ahmar, despite the fact that the lower court had already made a "final ruling." It permitted Alqasem to remain in the country in a third appeal, which usually does not involve intervention in evidentiary questions, even though the two previous hearings addressed the matter soundly and objectively and ruled to expel her.
We can assume the outcry over the adultery ruling – which has already been dubbed "state violence against women" – will also compel Hayut to allow another hearing, in which she will select a convenient panel of justices, perpetuating the cycle of leftist support for the Supreme Court.
The lies and attacks on the justices are apparently working. The fact that the same "adulterous woman" was "left with nothing" yet still received, before even leaving the courtroom, half of all the assets purchased during the marriage (a store and three warehouses, another piece of commercial real estate and a quarter of the ownership rights over two apartments); and the fact that Justice Alex Stein even uttered in the first place that the rabbinical court's ruling was wrong "even though my opinion is not the deciding one, because the authority … is not mine" – did nothing to prevent lawmakers, public figures and journalists from condemning the Rabbinical Court ruling.
The obvious conclusion is that the court listens carefully to the public, and the only reason its rulings fail to provide the desired outcome on important issues for the Israeli Right is that, perhaps, the Right operates within the confines of the legislative process, and, at most, issues polite and justified criticism.
Another point is the restoration of autonomy. The Rabbinical Court ruling complies with the law and with the Supreme Court ruling stating that property obtained during the course of a marriage will be divided equally between the partners and property purchased before the marriage does not automatically become joint property, unless the intent to share it is proven. In the case in question, it was in fact proven that the husband intended to share the property with his wife as long as she was faithful. The woman wasn't "punished," because she was never actually entitled to the property - the husband had owned it prior to the marriage.
Justice Yitzhak Amit was furious over the ruling because the adultery aspect of the case was noted by the court, which he viewed as an attempt by the court to supplant civic law with religious law in regard to property. According to Amit, Supreme Court justices harbor the fundamental view that adultery should not be a consideration in hearings over the division of assets, and therefore the court failed by giving weight to the wife's adultery.
In contrast, Stein said the law and the "the Bavli ruling" from 1994 (that if there is financial conflict, the rabbinical court had to rule according to the civil law of shared property, which is binding on all judicial instances in Israel) meant the couple's asset hearing could be deemed a contractual issue, which permits autonomy.
The couple will decide on their own which property they want to share and don't want to share. The court gave weight to both sides, which view the adultery in a grave light. Stein answered Amit: The Bavli ruling, which released the couple from the rabbinical court's fundamental views on the matter, should also release them from the Supreme Court's fundamental views on the matter. A person who doesn't want his property given to an adulterous wife has the right to autonomy and to apply his own worldview of marriage and divorce.
This is good news. A court that employs rhetoric of autonomy will not subjugate the people to its worldview. The power of autonomy isn't only welcome when it comes to the rabbinical court, but the Supreme Court as well.
