As part of a divorce proceeding, Dayan ordered "immediate removal of the dog from the house" • Advocate Shani: "I claimed that this was animal cruelty - it did not help.
We will turn to the High Court if necessary "
Illustration image
Photography:
Photo: Oren Cohen
What do you do when a couple on the verge of divorce disagree on what to do with the family pet?
This is the question that rolled to the door of the Rabbinical Court in Petah Tikva, and their answer surprised us as well.
"This is a high-intensity divorce case," explains attorney Arthur Shani of the law firm A. Zisman Shani, who is representing the man before the court. "The couple has had a dog for about 20 years, since the beginning of the marriage, and after the previous dog died, they purchased Louis, a new, purebred dog, priced at NIS 8,000. "
Some time later, the couple began divorce proceedings, and like many other cases, this case also became a dispute in which the parties were required to seek redress from the courts and rabbinical courts.
Usually, when the courts decide on the question of custody of the couple's children, they take into account the "best interests of the child", and it turns out that the decision on the issue of keeping animals after separation between spouses is guided by the consideration of "animal welfare". He was a child. "
Indeed, after the woman, the "petitioner", turned to the rabbinical court in Petah Tikva and complained that her and her husband's purebred dog was a real nuisance to her, the court ordered the man, "the respondent", to "immediately remove the dog from the house - which is a nuisance to the petitioner."
Adv. Shani believes that the order is related to the strict approach of the Rabbinical Court in Petah Tikva. "In a court in Tel Aviv, this would not have happened.
There they might have suggested that the husband take the dog after they separate residence.
The couple lives together, so the meaning of the instruction to ‘get the dog out of the house immediately’ is to simply throw him out on the street.
I made all the claims of animal cruelty in Judaism, I also mentioned that it is obligatory to give food to an animal before we eat ourselves.
It did not help. "In the civil courts, by the way, the area of animal rights is quite developed, and the judges who see pets as part of the family, divide custody of them between the spouses.
Could it be that the order is related to the fact that judges usually do not have a dog in the house?
"It's unequivocal just because of that, and that's exactly the mistake. Most judges are restless and know how to elegantly come out of such corners. They understand and know how to adapt their ruling to the specific family. They know that a wrong decision will lead to criticism."
Adv. Shani also promises to go to the Grand Rabbinical Court with a petition in Louis' case, and even to the High Court if necessary, and in the meantime Louis, the dog in dispute, will continue to wait for the final decision on his fate.