3

I was reading http://m.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/560111/jewish/The-Wifes-Grounds-for-Divorce.htm

And I saw

A woman may demand a divorce from her husband, if he has been found to be philandering with other women. There need not be proof of his having committed adultery, just of his having cavorted with other women. Even his causing her a bad name through his lecherous actions is likewise considered legitimate justification for the wife launching a divorce action. 

Is this the halacha?
What is the source of this?
Does she get the kesuba?

hazoriz
  • 7,506
  • 2
  • 21
  • 53
  • As in other question I commented, you must rephrase it, you probably mean "can she be guaranteed a divorce", because she can demand or claim anything in a court. Also cheating is a very broad term, however nonexisting in Jewish terminology. – Al Berko Nov 14 '17 at 22:54

1 Answers1

4

See Ramma in Even HaEzer 154 Siff 1 .

He discusses a man who is Ro'eh Zonos, which may mean he visits prostitutes or just has random affairs, and his wife complains about it. He says witnesses of him cavorting like this (not just young nonjews stating this) is grounds for forcing (either literally or through religious convincing, see Siff 21) him to give a divorce according to some, (Yesh Omrim). [In this context where there is no opposing opinion, Yesh Omrim is a way of introducing an accepted novelle]

Aruch Hashulchan on the subject in Siff 16 explains that someone who acts like this will necessarily detract from his conjugal obligations to his wife which is grounds for divorce. He also adds that this behavior is also grounds for her to say Maus Alay, he is disgusting to me which in this case is again is grounds for divorce, and especially since he may be exposing her to health risks.

hazoriz
  • 7,506
  • 2
  • 21
  • 53
user6591
  • 33,638
  • 2
  • 39
  • 81
  • +1 Thank you, maybe you can help (me) with http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/71371/5120 – hazoriz May 17 '16 at 08:58
  • I just looked at the sources and it seams roe zoinos (shepherding prostitutes) means to act as a pimp. – hazoriz May 17 '16 at 11:03
  • And it seems that the problem is that it is a very disgusting profession, and this does not answer my question – hazoriz May 17 '16 at 11:07
  • @hazoriz that is not correct. The term is borrowed from משלי כט ג. It's brought in shas a number of times, ערובין סד, סוטה לו. – user6591 May 17 '16 at 11:10
  • @hazoriz see for instance there in Sota. Sleeping with the wife of Potifar would have resulted in Yosef being called a רועה זונות amongst other spiritual losses. – user6591 May 17 '16 at 11:17
  • thank you i am looking, i see that Ber haitiv on the rama sais that this is spesificly regarding prostitutes, and also the aruch hashulchan can be understood this way (if I am not wrong again) – hazoriz May 17 '16 at 11:21
  • I do not think it is possible that it includes If the girls are unmarried and are not payed. Please help me understand correctly – hazoriz May 17 '16 at 11:42
  • I see the mishlai (it seems I can not be right since being a pimp should make you money not loose it) – hazoriz May 17 '16 at 11:43
  • I'm glad we agree your interpretation of the words is incorrect. However this issue of whether the phrase means visiting prostitutes or having affairs is exactly what I was trying to address in the wording of my answer. The tshuva in be'er heitev definitely focuses on the monetary aspect. A.H. not so much. All his reasons will apply to a regular affair as well. On a side note, some dope I know is having an affair (yes his wife knows, she's a dope too) and he is blowing a tremendous amount of money on his interest. So possibly the words of Chacham Tzvi in be'er heitev also apply. – user6591 May 17 '16 at 11:48
  • in your opinion does the a.h. include an unmarried Jewish girl (for free) (she is not a zona for a koen) – hazoriz May 17 '16 at 11:53
  • I personally think so. What Beis din thinks will be a different story. As far as I know a single incident with a single partner does not result in Beis din 'encouraging' divorce. – user6591 May 17 '16 at 12:08
  • But that line in the A.H. about S.T.D.'S has been used in cases where the husband's careless behavior was used against him. – user6591 May 17 '16 at 12:11
  • I do not thing this is a question of encouraging it is a question is the wife has the right to demand – hazoriz May 17 '16 at 14:39
  • By encouraging I mean forcing. – user6591 May 17 '16 at 14:41
  • to clarify she was demanding and they said this does not give her the right to demand?. How do you understand the words שראו אותו עם מנאפים – hazoriz May 17 '16 at 14:45
  • Correct. Beis din suggested therapy etc. She accepted. I have no idea what happened afterwards. As far as pluralistic language, I agree the implications are for multiple offences, but A.H. logic would apply to a single mistress. Albeit probably not just a singular incident. – user6591 May 17 '16 at 14:53
  • is it not in the male form? – hazoriz May 17 '16 at 20:20
  • http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/71392/5120 – hazoriz May 17 '16 at 20:48