view counter
New Court Set To Free Agunot

Despite failure of past efforts on behalf of ‘chained’ wives, ambitious beit din now in session; will its rulings be accepted?

11/19/14
Staff Writer
Photo Galleria: 
Rabbi Simcha Krauss: “These women have suffered in pain for too long.”
Rabbi Simcha Krauss: “These women have suffered in pain for too long.”

In a bid to free women trapped for years in broken marriages, a new international religious court — spearheaded by Orthodox rabbis here, with the backing of several haredi colleagues in Israel — has begun officiating cases, The Jewish Week has learned.

The court, called the International Beit Din, was formed in June and is headed by Rabbi Simcha Krauss, a highly respected former pulpit rabbi in Queens and Religious Zionist of America leader who made aliyah in 2005. It is interpreting Jewish law in new ways — still consistent with tradition, its leaders say — to procure a get, or religious divorce, for agunot, women stuck in marriages with recalcitrant husbands.

“These women have been in pain for too long,” said Rabbi Krauss, who moved from Jerusalem to Riverdale in order to direct the court. “In many of these cases, their husbands have already moved on with their lives and gotten remarried, while they are still trapped.”

According to Jewish law a woman is unable to remarry without a get while there are methods in place for a husband to do so. 

The court, Rabbi Krauss told The Jewish Week in an interview, has “jumped right in” and has already seen 10 cases over the past few weeks, including several “high-profile” ones.

Currently, the court is in the process of writing up Jewish legal documentation (psakei din) to free these women from their former marriages.

In addition to introducing certain methodological innovations, the court has appointed Dr. Giti Bendheim, a psychologist here, to head a special committee to help women feel more secure during the judicial process. According to Rabbi Krauss, Bendheim, who is active with American Friends of Nishmat, a Jerusalem-based center for advanced Torah study for women, is the first person to serve in a role of this specific nature.

“We want to make certain that there is always a woman in the room,” said Rabbi Krauss, reflecting a concern that has become increasingly relevant in light of the recent mikvah scandal in Washington, D.C. “Some of the agunot are very young, and they would benefit from having a strong female presence available,” he said.

While the number of agunot is not known, the problem has gone largely unsolved, pitting traditional Jewish law against those who feel deep empathy for women stuck in loveless marriages. At the root of the issue is the husband’s absolute right when it comes to issuing a get, or Jewish divorce. And while rabbinic authorities offer sympathy for these women, they maintain they are constrained from action in many cases by the boundaries of halacha. The result, at times, has the husband using extortion before granting a divorce, insisting on large sums of money and/or refusing joint custody of children. According to Jewish law, if the agunah marries and has a child, the child is considered a mamzer, illegitimate, and cannot marry a Jew. (This is not true in the husband’s case.)

Concerns about the moral injustice of the “absolute right” principle have led to a myriad of efforts to resolve the agunah problem, or “crisis,” in recent years. In the 1990s, the late Rabbi Emanuel Rackman, a major figure in Modern Orthodoxy and president of Bar-Ilan University, convened a beit din that issued divorces on the basis of kiddushei ta’ot, a Talmudic concept for annulment. The principle reasons that the woman never would have married her husband if she had known he would act in an abusive fashion during the marriage.

While deeply respected on a personal level by his peers, Rabbi Rackman, who died in 2008,was unsuccessful in persuading them to accept his approach, which was considered too lenient. The practical result was that many rabbis refused to officiate at the subsequent weddings of women who had been freed by the rabbi’s bet din.

“We’ve dealt with cases of women who got a heter [permission] to remarry from Rabbi Rackman, but when they approached their local Orthodox rabbi, he said the heter was no good,” said Rabbi Jeremy Stern, director of the Organization for the Resolution of Agunot (ORA). ORA, founded in 2002, has assisted in the resolution of 225 agunah cases, often by holding public protests to embarrass and pressure the husband to release his wife from the marriage.

“These women were given a solution that wasn’t a solution,” said Rabbi Stern. “Communal and rabbinic consensus when it comes to agunah cases is critical.”

Rabbi Krauss is introducing the legal concept of get zikui, annulling a marriage based on what is best for both parties. The principle operates on the premise that the divorce will ultimately benefit the husband as well as the wife.

“There is no more relationship — they have gone their separate ways,” explained Rabbi Krauss in an email. “The husband doesn’t want to give the get unless he gets money. It’s not true that he doesn’t want to give a divorce, but he wants money. Deep down, he wants to be free and pursue his life.”

The International Beit Din will not use get zikui to the exclusion of other methods, explained Rabbi Yosef Blau, another of the three judges on the panel and the spiritual adviser at Yeshiva University.

“A number of tools can be used,” he said. “Each case will be evaluated on its own merit. The goal is to free women in a way that the decision will be accepted in the broader community.”

Procuring rabbinic consensus is the most important — and difficult — part of the process, said Rabbi Blau. “A piece of paper is just a piece of paper,” he said. “Acceptance is what sets an agunah free.”

Already, Rabbi Krauss has gained the support of two leading Israeli rabbis associated with the charedi community. Most significant is Zalman Nechemia Goldberg, a rosh yeshiva, posek (someone who rules on issues of Jewish law), and chief justice of the Supreme Rabbinical Court of Jerusalem.

The other is She’ar Yashuv Cohen, former chief rabbi of Haifa and president of its rabbinic courts. A third prominent Israeli rosh yeshiva has also signaled his support for Rabbi Krauss but prefers to remain anonymous.

“Our support stands firm,” said Rabbi Krauss, who first told The Jewish Week about the International Beit Din’s support in December 2013.

Still, despite support from abroad, the new religious court has already met with resistance here. According to a source close to the court, several leading rabbis at Yeshiva University, including Rabbi Mordechai Willig and Rabbi Hershel Schachter, have already expressed reservations about the court’s methodology. The source wished to remain anonymous in order to avoid “mahchlocet,” public disagreement.

Both Rabbi Willig and Rabbi Schachter declined to comment.

Other rabbis committed to resolving the agunah crisis raise issues about the most appropriate methodologies. Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, the chief rabbi of Efrat, Israel, and a progressive voice in Modern Orthodoxy, said that “we don’t need innovative approaches.” He is a strong advocate of hafkaat kidushin, an approach that abrogates the marriage retroactively, similar to the approach used by the late Rabbi Rackman.

Though a longtime activist on this issue, Rabbi Riskin does not serve on a divorce court and has not personally handled any agunah cases. According to Rabbi Riskin, his approach has only been successfully used once in an agunah case several decades ago.

“The Talmud has five places in which it establishes a possibility of a religious court abrogating a marriage if the husband is unfairly using the law against his wife,” said Rabbi Riskin, who has written a book on the topic. “The solution already exists, and it’s built into the marriage formula.”

Rabbi Riskin’s approach is not accepted by mainstream authorities in Israel, most of whom maintain the principle of a husband’s absolute right to end the marriage.

“All those who have objected to what I have proposed will object to what he [Rabbi Krauss] is suggesting,” said Rabbi Riskin.

Aside from methodology, the International Beit Din will also implement a new policy of transparency. According to traditional Jewish law, members of the court do not have to give any explanation for their rulings. But Rabbi Ronnie Warburg, director of the International Beit Din and the court’s third judge, explained that “transparency is an imperative.”

“People today assume that the rulings of a beit din are corrupt or uninformed,” he said. “That is why explaining every decision is necessary. We will present our reasoning clearly and openly.”

The International Beit Din also hopes to “cut down the time” it takes for a woman to move through the court system, said Rabbi Warburg. “A woman can wait years to have her case heard and processed,” he said. “We hope to create a more efficient, transparent process.”

Blu Greenberg, a longtime activist on this issue and founder of JOFA, the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance, is supportive of the new religious court. “There needs to be a systemic change,” she said. “For many other victims of extreme recalcitrance, the problem cannot to be solved on the steps of Congress or on the front page of The New York Times,” said Greenberg, referring to the rallies and public-shaming methods currently used to pressure husbands into giving a get.

“The solutions already exist in the tradition,” she said. “They need to be picked up and put forward by someone brave.”

hannah@jewishweek.org

Last Update:

01/20/2015 - 14:16

view counter

Comment Guidelines

The Jewish Week feels comments create a valuable conversation and wants to feature your thoughts on our website. To make everyone feel welcome, we won't publish comments that are profane, irrelevant, promotional or make personal attacks.

This Bet Din has been the subject of an important article at
http://libibamizrach.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-international-bet-din-for-agunot.html

Rav Goldberg clearly stated that he has nothing to do with this Bet Din

For those who are seriously interested in this issue, see the psak din http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/psk/psk.asp?id=1054

I just spoke with R' Zalman Nechemiah Goldberg, he has no idea who Rabbi Simcha Krauss is, and he denied emphatically any connection with this initiative. He stated clearly that this idea is absolutely forbidden, and the claim that he supported any such idea is a complete sheker (lie). Those were his words.

it is imperative that Rav Goldberg goes on the public record stating his position, otherwise his name will be used to bolster the approach of Rabbi Krauss
His statement needs to be in writing and signed.

here is a woman who is trying to use this bais din :
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/07/is-lonna-kin-trying-to-get-annlument.html

Rabbi Krauss and Rabbi Rackman and others who have worked on these issues for eons, (I posted Rabbi Riskin's prenup agreement on America Online in the early 90s) deserve kol hakavod. In a world where the rabbanut keeps changing halacha...little girls have to wear black or get spit on or stoned with rocks, yell hefker and throw your soup ladel in the air if there are three guys in the room so you don't need to take it to the mikvah; figure out how to use electricity and push baby carriages on shabbos and there seems to be no problem spitting on the halacha and mesorah of centuries by deliberately provoking milchemet gog u magog on the Har HaBayit, promulgated hatred in the name of the Torah of person you disagree with on the planet and do away with democracy in Israel, but you can't free agunot??? Because it's all their fault? Really???

It's the MALE blackmailers, the extortionists, who are raking in millions through "getmail" who are the problem along with the corrupt batei din who are their enablers.

If were up to me, everyone involved in those courts, and every husband holding out for money and custody in exchange for the get would be prosecuted under the RICO statutes that brought down the MOB.

So you nay sayers and misogynists should find something else to do with your lives. You just seem to love it when an agunah and her kids are shoved off the derech so you can complain about mamzerim. Well, we know who the real mamzerim are, and they are not the rabbanim working on the new bet din.

This is extremisim that is antithetical to
Judaisim and secular humanisim and should
be condemned.The rabbinate has made
Get granting a profit center that should be
shut down,forthwith.

what is extremism? the effort to modernize the get process? or your blind adherence to antagonism to religious practice

The feminist movement believes in" change. The Torah does not change but rather the reformadox want to change it to conform with their way of life. Many Aguna cases are women who brought upon themselves the delay of their own GET by torturing their husbands thru the Civil Court system which is prohibited by the Torah. These women want everything their way, but the Torah is very clear in their guidelines of marriage and Divorce.

EXACTLY. Women go to secular court and milk the men for hundreds of thousands of dollars and only then go to Beit Din, expecting their get to be delivered to them on a gold platter by a man they've slandered and tortured for years, and in most cases denied him visitation of their children.

More information can be found on this topic at: www.RabbiGedaliaDovSchwartz.com

Rabbi Benyamin Yosef

We cannot condemn in strong enough terms the decision of the new bet din to refuse all cases of Agunim being held ransom by their former wives refusal of the Gett unless paid ransom --- often represented by the same rabbis & attorneys who lead the fundraising & PR for Agunot. This new entity has defined itself as solely a Feminist vehicle. A tragic missed opportunity.

Mazel Tov to all involved ! What a breath of fresh air ! You have revived the hopes of most in the Klal that there is indeed today a Leadership worthy of respect and place. Today, my hope in Leadership is revived that I want to cry ! In a broken world of corrupt Beth Dins, Dayans and Rabbis, this endeavour is Kidush HaShem ! May your rulings be accepted Internationally and may HaShem oppose anyone who stands in the way of True Justice !

"A third prominent Israeli rosh yeshiva has also signaled his support for Rabbi Krauss but prefers to remain anonymous." A very sad commentary on the present state of Judaism that this rabbi feels compelled to remain anonymous!!!!!

I like many of Ms Graetz's solutions and commend her for thinking of them. My wife and I signed a pre-nup as our orthodox rabbi would not marry anyone without one. I have gradually come around to proposing another feminist halakha based on the idea of freeing the captive and that is we should inquire when invited to a wedding if there is a prenup or other technique in place to prevent agunah, and if not, we should publically refuse to attend, only then will the practice change.

No it won't. You will just save the couple the cost of your dinner. The savings will be welcome.

This is halachic bunku. They have no leg to stand on and the women will be as chained as they ever were. No Orthodox Talmid Chochom will accept this pesak. If get zikui was an option, why did the Maharam Padua put up such a fight about how to send a get from Metz to Brisk?

You guys are sad.... all of you... the issue isnt finding ways to fixed a problem that this false system created... the issue is admiting that this false system was invented by people from 1000 years ago (who probably wouldnt have the intellect to invent the can-opener). These are not God's laws... these are man made laws (no different than the laws the gamarah invented for halachically valuing and selling a non-jewish slave).

Blah, blah, blah. There's always some Jew with his comment about how the whole religion is bunk. Then the insult to intelligence of anyone who believes.

Yet you still seem interested in reading the JEWISH Week. Why? Is there a sale on bagels?

In the opening words of my chapter entitled "Feminist Halakhic Solutions" which appears in Silence is Deadly: Judaism Confronts Wifebeating (1998) I addressed the problem of the refusal of the beit din to force the husband to grant a get as follows:
"Our survey of halakhic literature has shown an inherent lack of symmetry in the status of husbands and wives, particularly as regards divorce. This inherent inequality is a major factor in the ambivalence of halakha to wifebeating. Our discussion must end with suggestions for resolving the halakhic problems encountered in this book. However, it is no simple matter to define a halakhic problem. People do not always agree about what constitutes a problem. Even once one arrives at a definition, there might be further questions about the process of change in halakha that could legitimately be used to arrive at a solution. Moreover, if and when the need for change and the vehicle for change are generally agreed upon, there is a further question of how the changes are to be implemented and, more importantly, by whom.
One model for change is found in an egalitarian mishnah (M. Sotah 9:9), which is based on an analogy between the increase in the number of murderers and the increase in the number of adulterers. This mishnah states that, when the number of murders increased, the ritual of the heifer whose neck is broken [egla arufa] when an unclaimed, unidentified body is found, was canceled (Deut. 21:1-9). Similarly, when there were too many adulterers, the ritual of the bitter waters (Numbers 5:11-31) was canceled. Clearly this mishnah reports that changes occurred when circumstances made it necessary to adapt the halakha. The prescribed rituals assumed a reality of a rare murder or adultery, and they embodied the approach of the Torah to the exception. But it became futile to try to apply these rituals to a reality of frequent transgressions. To do so would have lessened the social impact of such rituals through incessant repetition, and the rabbis did not want to do that.
One implication of this mishnah is that, when the assumptions about human behavior underlying a given ritual have changed, and this change is "proven" by the behavior of large numbers of people, then the given ritual is virtually "canceled" by the new facts; that is, the legal implementation of the old assumptions is no longer tenable.
Even though reality has changed dramatically today, serious problems concerning women are not being addressed. We might use the same mechanism and language that the mishnah uses vis-à-vis today's problems of the status of women in initiating divorce; namely, 'when the number of men who refuse to grant divorce increases, when the number of blackmailers increases, then the implementation of the law on which divorce ritual rests— the dependency on the husband's good will—is canceled.'"

I then go on to list alternative halakhic solutions (most of which not addressed seriously by the Orthodox world).
1) Pre-nuptial agreements
2) Another possibility is gerushim al t'nai [a conditional divorce] to be deposited with the rabbinic courts in every case of marriage.
3) Another suggestion has been kiddushin al t'nai [marriage on condition]. In this proposal, the marriage itself is conditional on the granting of divorce, and if one side obstinately refuses the divorce, the marriage is automatically annulled.
4) Hiyuv get [obligatory divorce]: when the court "obliges" the husband to issue his wife a divorce, it is not considered force, and he cannot go to jail. However, they can order the husband to pay large payments of child support and payment of the ketubah, even if his wife works, in an attempt to force him to issue the divorce. He can be excommunicated (put into herem), and if he refuses to listen to the court he can be put into jail for not paying his support payments, etc.
5) Kfiyat get [Court forced compulsory divorce]: The court forces a recalcitrant husband to issue his wife a divorce when he habitually mistreats her or when he is incurably addicted to drugs, gambling, or alcohol (this follows Rambam's dictum of meis alai [he is abhorrent to me]), or when the husband has AIDS, doesn't support her, or is violent. The problem is that with this solution, the wife might lose her rights to the ketubah.
6) Hafka-at Kiddushin: The fourth is the process of rabbinic annulment of the marriage. Since the rabbis are one of the deot [consenting parties, vested with authority] in the contraction of the marriage, if they remove their consent the whole contract is annulled. This can be applied when the husband beats his wife. This was done in the past and there is no reason why it cannot be reintroduced. The Conservative Movement uses this procedure in cases of recalcitrant husbands.
7) Civil Sanctions: Giving the rabbinical courts the authority to revoke the husband's driving license, passport, use of credit cards, access to bank accounts. Since many husbands leave the country without issuing a divorce and leave their wives behind, civil law should have the power to extradite those husbands who are in another country.
8) Vigilante punishment of abusive husbands: Maimonides's suggestion for beating up the husband is alive and well today. If the wife declared that her husband disgusted her and that she could not stand living with him [meis alai], Maimonides permitted beating the recalcitrant husband until he "freely" declared he wanted to release her.
9) Civil Disobedience by women: Since a woman must go to the mikveh after her menstruation ceases, it is in the husband's interest that she do so, so that the couple can resume sexual relations. In the 1990's in Canada, a group of Orthodox women decided to take collective action against a man who refused to issue his wife a divorce. They all refused to go to the mikveh until the husband came forth with the divorce. This group action quickly got their husbands' support, and pressure was put on the husband to issue his wife a divorce, so that the community could go back to its normal relationships.
Most of the previous suggestions for change are in keeping with a "reactive" approach to halakha. There is a presumption made by halakha about the status and function of women. Within this system, women can react. Rachel Adler wrote in 1993 an article in which she used Robert Cover as a Resource for the Renewal of Halakha (Conservative Judaism XLV:3. She pointed out that "The presumptions select the questions. The categories shape them. Adjudication creates precedents that influence the form and direction of future questions." A "proactive" approach, however, takes into account that these "halakhic rules, categories and precedents were constructed and applied without the participation of women...that they are inadequate or inimical to concerns which women themselves might raise if they were legal subjects rather than legal objects."

I wish the innovative beit din luck. Unfortunately the article clearly hints that change will not be forthcoming soon.

Half of your solutions are halachic mistakes. The other half are distortions.
Kidushin al tenai does not practically work after nisuin as all Halachic decisors have ruled in the last 200 years.
Get al tenai is disqualified if the couple are alone together after the writing of the get.
No religious court can place exaggerated amounts of child support on a husband, and if they do, the get would be a 'forced get' and disqualified.
The Rambam is not, and has almost never historically been, the accepted halacha regarding mo'us alay. The Rosh and thereafter the Shulchan Aruch have clearly not allowed forcing a husband who is 'disgusting' to his wife to be forced to give a get.
Hafka'at Kidushin is a serious mistake. The Rabbis who are a party to a marriage are not anyone with ordination. It refers to the Rabbis of the Talmud, who did not annul a marriage just because the husband refused to give a get.
Civil sanctions are another disqualifying form of coercion.
Civil disobedience by other women punishing their husbands because of something done by someone of their gender is repulsive and forbidden by halacha. A woman who refuses to go to Mikva to punish her husband is committing a serious sin and the Beis Yosef quotes a Midrash about the dark punishment awaiting such a woman. What did her husband do so bad that she refuses to keep her marital obligations? Because he was born with the same appendages as someone who is doing something wrong? This is absolutely disgusting and telling of an organization that claims to want to assist 'chained women' but really just wants to create a fight between the sexes and to push one side. Disgusting.

Add comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.