Israel’s Supreme Court has ruled that botei din may no longer impose jurisdiction on Israeli citizens whose center of life is abroad

The Meir Kins of this world  just won a great victory; they can now come to Israel with no repercussions. They can marry another woman without divorcing the first in the USA and come to Israel on vacation! 
 

In a sweeping and precedent-setting decision, Israel’s Supreme Court has ruled that botei din may no longer impose jurisdiction on Israeli citizens whose center of life is abroad, even if they briefly enter the country. The dramatic judgment brings an end to years of legal and halachic friction over so-called “airport jurisdiction,” in which litigants were summoned to rabbinical courts based solely on fleeting physical presence in Israel.

Justice Yechiel Kasher overturned a ruling of the Rabbinical High Court and clarified that Israeli rabbinical courts have authority over marriage, divorce, and related financial matters only when there is a “substantive connection” to the State of Israel. Mere Israeli citizenship or a short visit to the country, he ruled, is insufficient to establish international jurisdiction.

At the heart of the case was the interpretation of Section 1 of the Rabbinical Courts Jurisdiction Law, which grants rabbinical courts exclusive authority over matters of marriage and divorce involving Jews who are “in Israel, citizens of the state or its residents.” The key question was the meaning of the phrase “in Israel”: does it require a genuine, meaningful connection to the country, or is temporary physical presence enough?

Justice Kasher decisively rejected the broader interpretation. He ruled that without a real and substantial link to Israel, the courts lack international jurisdiction. As a result, Israeli citizens who live abroad and visit Israel briefly can no longer find themselves suddenly subject to rabbinical court proceedings—particularly financial and property claims—when all of their assets and daily lives are based overseas.

The ruling places significant emphasis on preventing legal injustice. Justice Kasher noted that recognizing jurisdiction based solely on momentary presence could lead to unfair outcomes and coercive litigation tactics. He pointed to earlier Supreme Court rulings that require a “proper connection” to Israel before judicial authority can be exercised. Considerations of judicial efficiency also played a role, with the court stating that Israel is not the appropriate forum for disputes involving individuals who lack sufficient ties to the country.

Importantly, the court held that this interpretation applies equally to both parties in a dispute. Just as a defendant may argue a lack of sufficient connection to Israel, so too may a plaintiff be required to demonstrate such a connection in order to bring a case before the rabbinical courts.

The precedent-setting decision arose from a dispute between a couple who married in Israel in 1985 but soon thereafter relocated to the United Kingdom. The wife remained in Britain, while the husband later initiated proceedings against her in Jerusalem, taking advantage of her brief visit to Israel. Both the regional rabbinical court and the Rabbinical High Court had approved the move, but the Supreme Court intervened and put a stop to it.

Justice Kasher ordered that the case be returned to the regional rabbinical court for a renewed factual examination of the woman’s substantive connection to Israel. He also ordered the husband to pay 40,000 shekels in legal costs.

Deputy President of the Supreme Court Noam Sohlberg concurred with the outcome, stressing that since the bulk of the couple’s assets are located in the United Kingdom, Israel is not the appropriate legal forum for resolving the dispute.