JERUSALEM (VINnews) — A couple arrived at the Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem with an agreement already signed by the Family Court, only to be surprised by the judge’s refusal to grant them a divorce. The reason: the judge did not approve the “nesting” arrangement, an arrangement in which the children remain in their home while the parents rotate in accordance with the custody schedule.
Join our WhatsApp groupSubscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
Hagai, one of the spouses, described:
“The judge stepped out for a few minutes and returned saying that he had consulted with 11 rabbinical judges. According to halacha, they do not recognize the ‘nesting’ arrangement, and therefore he would not approve the divorce. He told us we could appeal, but that it would be pointless, as this was a principled decision and we would receive a rejection.”
The “nesting” arrangement has become increasingly common in recent years, and it turns out that Hagai and his former partner are not the only ones to encounter difficulties with the rabbinical court, which effectively turned them into divorce refusers.
“We came to the court with full agreements from start to finish. All he needed to do was approve and allow us to implement our understandings,” Hagai shared. “Suddenly we felt that there was deep interference in the most personal and private decisions about how we should live our lives and raise our children. It was a very difficult and invasive feeling.”
At Itim, an organization that assists the public in navigating bureaucracy related to religious services in Israel, they say this situation is the result of the authority granted to rabbinical courts by the state.
Attorney Ohad Weigler, Director of Public Policy at Itim, explained:
“Nesting arrangements are a precise example of the tragedy faced by divorcing couples. On one hand, parents in a complex situation who want to do the maximum for their children. On the other hand, rabbinical courts that refuse to arrange a divorce due to halachic considerations, considerations that the couple themselves do not even accept.”
“As reflected in a survey we conducted,” Weigler added, “the conduct of rabbinical judges in divorce proceedings leads many couples to develop resentment toward the religious establishment and distance themselves from their Jewish identity. But the truth is that the primary responsibility does not lie with the courts, but with elected officials. They are the ones enabling this difficult reality to persist, even in the State of Israel in 2026.”
The Rabbinical Courts Administration responded:
“As a judicial authority, the rabbinical courts do not have a ‘policy’ regarding nesting arrangements. Each case is examined individually. The court is responsible for creating a framework that enables both parents to maintain contact with their shared children. Various models exist for this purpose, and the court adopts the appropriate model based on the specific circumstances of each case. Any party dissatisfied with a ruling retains the right to appeal to the Great Rabbinical Court of Appeals in Jerusalem.”
The article is very distasteful. It is not about the arrangement, its an attack on the Rabbanut’s ability to determine halacha and a demand that the state take away that power from the Rabbanut.
I am confused as to what the halachic issue is with this arrangement?
Can someone elaborate?
Aside from the Halacha. (It is very problematic for divorcees to live in close proximity) A little common sense can go a long way here. Imagine after both parents remarry. There will be two couples switching off in the apartment every week/month.
So many rabonim in the comments section.
It’s very simple people. If they both actually still own the home, and the arrangement is that they both use the master bedroom when it is their turn with the kids, then there is a serious issue with Yichud, which has more serious issues with a divorced couple. In this situation they both will be comfortable using or entering the room, even when it isn’t their turn, since they probably both keep some of their belongings there. It wouldn’t even look strange to their kids if they are both in the same room at the same time if one can can just say for example, I had to go in there to pick up some clothing.
None of the speculations regarding the yichud issue are convincing. To the extent that the parents are both are scrupulously observant, they will make it their business to avoid yichud, and to the extent that they are not observant there are any number of situations where yichud is likely even when the parents live separately. No one has identified anything about a “nesting” arrangement that is really more likely to result in post-divorce yichud than if the parents live separately; in fact, when the parents live separately, is yichud not more likely if one brings the children to the other’s home and wants to bring them in to make sure that they are safely inside? Or is there a “geder” that it is unseemly post-divorce for both to have keys, and thus access, to a particular dwelling unit regardless of the actual likelihood of yichud? The Rabbanut could defuse the reflexive secular criticism by explaining just what the issue is. Some people might scoff at the Rabbanut’s position, but that is better than having everyone wonder what is going on.
This story omits the details of the case (probably for good reasons) so we don’t know the context and details. The rabbanut has improved very much over the years in seeking peaceful and equitable resolutions for all parties in divorce cases, and the childrens’ benefit is, as a matter of rabbanut policy, always placed ahead of the other parties’ benefit. Since we really don’t know the particulars of this case, I think that there’s really no basis to form an opinion for or against the rabbanut’s decision.
Interesting concept. Never heard of it before.
As a rule, divorce is ugly. Not that this needs to be so, but in practice, it just is. The greatest issues are the agreement to settle the affairs of the children, visitation and custody, finances, and division of assets. ANyone that dabbles or is busy with parting couples knows this well. Once an agrement is okayed by both sides, the situation loses most of its negativity, and things can proceed as halacha dictates. The achiedvement of an agreement needs to weigh heavily on the beis din, and it should be supported. Yes, there are sometimes agreements that are reached that one side accepts grudgingly, and these might include things that are frankly unacceptable, achieved through bullying and pressure.
Yes, every case needs to be judged on its own merits. Agreements are hard enough to reach. We need to find every way possible to support them.
Lots of commenters are saying that internet commenters shouldn’t second guess a rav’s psak halacha. But here’s the issue: the couple here was not looking for a psak halacha. They’re just trying to move on with their lives, but are stuck being religiously married against their will. They’re unable to remarry, and–depending on observance level–are at risk of violating aishes ish. It’s not really possible for rabbis to involuntarily insert themselves in someone else’s life, and then demand that their psak be respected by people who never asked for it.
Total nonsense this Yichud issue! Halevei the couple should want to remarry!