Whenever a couple decides to break up their home, seeking to divorce in a Chief Rabbinate Beis Din, a complex issue arises: Does the woman have to return the jewelry she received from the husband?
During the course of their marriage, a Yerushalmi avreich gave his wife jewelry on Yomim Tovim and their wedding anniversaries. At a certain point, the couple decided to divorce, and the wife agreed she would forgo her kesuva and division of property would be discussed after the ‘get’ was given.
It turns out that the fate of the rings, earrings, bracelets and the necklaces that were given as a gift caused deep disagreements not only between the husband and his ex-wife, but also between the three dayanim making up the Yerushalayim Beis Din. Each dayan wrote a lengthy psak, quoting an array of sources from Shulchan Aruch and from halachic contemporaries towards supporting their decision.
The husband explained that from his point of view, the jewelry was given with the intention of his wife enjoying them, but the gifts were conditioned on the fact they are living together. He felt that once divorced, they are his property once again as the ‘gifts’ expired with the giving of the ‘get’. The wife stipulated she received them as gifts, unconditionally, and now, after being divorced, they remain her property.
Dayanim HaRav Uriel Lavi, Rav Shlomo Tam and Rav David Malka were not unanimous in their decisions, and each wrote his own psak.
Dayan ‘A’ writes a halachic ruling based on the Shulchan Aruch, the Rama and dozens of poskim up to the contemporary poskim. In his conclusion, he writes: “In our time the woman usually remains with her clothing and jewelry, and the husband does not insist on receiving what is due to him according to halachic rulings. As such, the jewelry will remain in her possession.”
Dayan ‘B’s’ opinion followed a lengthy halachic discussion, deciding: “The jewelry given by the husband is not a complete gift but conditional, so after the divorce, the woman must return the jewelry to her husband.”
Dayan ‘C’ who was supposed to decide between the two opinions, chose a third path and bypassed the decisions of his fellow dayanim.
He wrote: “I read the words of my fellow dayanim, and in my opinion there is no need to decide how to behave in our time regarding jewelry. Some believe that they are given in line with Dayan ‘A’, that she keeps the jewelry as the minhag has changed since the time of the Shulchan Aruch and the Rama, and today, there is an ‘umdana’ (אומדנא) that they were given to her as unconditional gifts; or perhaps according to Dayan ‘B’, who rules the gifts were conditional, and therefore, the property is to be returned to the husband.
“In this case, it turns out that the woman has already sold the used jewelry, which she does not want, and the only question remains is who will receive the monetary compensation in this case,
“In this particular case, since the alimony set is the lower limit, taking the economic situation of the husband into account, as he is of limited means, and since the women explains she is using the money acquired from the sale of the jewelry for her household needs, to compensate [for the low] alimony [payments], I do not see fit to decide the dispute between the dayanim on the principle level, and in this case, I believe the woman should not be required to return the proceeds she received from the sale of the jewelry.”
As such, in a majority decision, the beis din ruled the woman is not required to return the jewelry or compensate the former avreich husband for the sale of the jewelry that was received from him during their marriage.
(YWN Israel Desk – Jerusalem)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
5 Responses
What do these 3 Dayonim hold, when husband procured 2 plots next to each-other, and then they part ways? Was this unconditional, and her plot? or was it assuming they remain married? since otherwise 2 ex’s would be buried alongside.
With all respect, who ever heard of a husband giving his wife jewelry “conditioned” upon her staying in the marriage with him, even if he acts in such a manner that she must seek a get. In this case, its not clear who was at fault if anyone, or if they simply no longer loved one another and wanted out of the marriage. If the husband wanted to make the gift “conditional”, than he should have made that explicit, preferably in writing. We don’t have the entire psak of this dayan so we don’t really know how he came to his conclusion. In the secular courts, there have been rare cases where judges ordered a wife to return a ring and other expensive “gifts” to her ex-husband after a divorce when it turns out the wife has been engaging in adultery. Otherwise, in most cases, personal gifts (jewelry, clothing etc.) are usually excluded from common property distribution.
I’m glad she got to keep the jewelry.
Whether we understand it or not these days in order for the get to be prepared the wife must sign off her claim to the kesuva: this story no different.
So why must she also give back the jewelry: why can’t at least be in exchange for her kesuva which the Chazal demand????
That’s ridiculous! Most divorcees return all gifts!
Gadolhadorah – that is the ikkar halocho. It depends on why the marriage broke down, but when it is considered her “fault”, i.e. she’s the one who’s not willing to continue married life, then the husband never gave her these gifts with this eventuality in mind.
To quote the Tur: ואפילו בגדים שקנה לה יפשוט מעליה דאדעתא למישקל ולמיפק לא זבין לה
(אבן העזר עז)
Imagine you had a son who married someone, bought them expensive jewellery, then demanded a divorce through no fault of your son. I’d expect you’d regret all that jewellery given her.
The only question is, is the minhag nowadays different i.e. not to seek return of the gifts, in which case this argument can no longer be made, as nowadays husbands give the gifts unconditionally.