Search
Close this search box.

Haifa Beis Din: Divorcing Couple Must Return Value of the Apartment to the Shver


A Haifa beis din was presented with a case of a couple wishing to divorce, seeking to determine if the million shekels they received from parents on the eve of their Chasuna was a gift or a loan.

On the eve of the marriage, the bride’s father sold his apartment and took a mortgage to buy another in order to give money to his daughter in the amount of NIS 1 million, to assist the young couple in purchasing their own apartment. An oral agreement was made between the father and the couple that they would repay the bank mortgage every month.

When the couple decided to divorce, it was agreed that the apartment in which they lived would be sold and the sum would be divided between the husband and the wife, but the husband claimed that the money was given to them as a gift and therefore he should not return it at all. The woman, on the other hand, claimed that the money had been given to them as a loan and therefore it had to be repaid from the amount received from the sale.

The dayanim sat for hours on end, questioning the husband, the wife, the father and the rabbi who helped the couple with the agreement. The dayanim in the case were Rabbi Chaim Bazak, Rabbi Shlomo Shushan and Rabbi Yinon Boaron. They discovered that the father sold his apartment, used the money to help the couple with the apartment, and then purchased a new apartment with a mortgage.

In the end, when the dayanim were asked to decide whether the million shekels was given as a loan to be returned or as a non-returnable marriage gift, they were assisted by sources from Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat and Rama as well as the Rishonim and Acharonim.

The three dayanim ruled that the money was given as a loan and therefore should be returned to the woman’s father despite the opposition of the ex-husband: “The court determines that the amount received by the parties from the father of the woman was a loan” explained the beis din.

(YWN Israel Desk – Jerusalem)



6 Responses

  1. but the husband claimed that the money was given to them as a gift That is correct, but only with the understood condition, that he remains the son-in-law, but not otherwise.

Leave a Reply


Popular Posts