"Agunah" means "chained" or "anchored". It refers to a woman who is married, but is no longer with her husband, with the husband either unable or unwilling to give her a "get". The classical example was a man who has simply disappeared. He may have been kidnapped. He may or may not be dead.He may simply have run away to another country in order to start a new life.We just don't know. This is one of the saddest cases in halachah, as the Torah puts the sole authority for giving the "get" into the hands of the man ("He shall write for her a book of divorce"). Such women, albeit few and far between, were forever chained to their husband, and unable to remarry. Jewish law bent over backwards to admit even flimsy evidence. proving that the man had died, thus freeing her. If he were alive, they could contact the rabbis of that town to coax him into giving a "get", which would then be given to her via proxy. The State of Israel actually has a rabbi who is well versed in "gittin" who travels the world in search of husbands who have disappeared, getting their authorization for a "get". In the aftermath of 9/11, the late Rabbi Ovadia Yosef came to New York to see the site of the disaster, and ruled that there was no reasonable chance for anyone to have survived, thereby freeing all the would-be agunot to get on with their lives.
Today, however, a far more common situation exists where a man may decide out of spite, or for purposes of extortion, to refuse his wife a get. Classically, the Beit Din would, in such cases, administer corporal punishment to "convince" the husband that it is in his best interest to grant the "get'. As this is illegal in nearly every country, it is now rarely done. Those who do it are subject to punishment by the Civil authorities. Several New York rabbis are now in prison on Federal charges for doing just this.
A group of more Left leaning Orthodox rabbis have come up with a solution, which they are actually putting into practice, but has met with great opposition from more "establishment" rabbis and organizations. It is the brainchild of the later Rabbi Marvin Antelman, a maverick (and some would say an eccentric) American rabbi. On the one hand, no one can question his sincerity. He was not afraid to tackle powerful people. In the mid 1980s, he had a woman wear a wire, thus exposing the head of the Tel Aviv Beit Din as a predator, extorting women for sexual favors in return for expediting their divorces. On the other, he was a fan of wild conspiracy theories, mostly around Shabbatean and Frankist heresies. He claimed that the Conservative rabbinical seminary, JTS, was a hotbed of Frankism, as well as is the ultra Orthodox Eidah HaHareidit of Jerusalem. In fact, Frankists were behind the Holocaust. (Search his name on YouTube, and you can find videos). I once met him at a wedding. He was a most likable man. Sadly for him, we had the same sense of humor. He came up with an idea that could save agunot. Although he was not widely known, his idea was picked up by Rabbi Emanuel Rackman, a powerhouse in Modern Orthodox circles. Most people today credit Rabbi Rackman with the idea, with the much lesser known Rabbi Antelman nearly forgotten.The idea goes like this:
In Jewish law, I can unilaterally impose a debt on myself, but can't impose a debt on someone else, without due process. In other words, i can decide I owe you $1.000, I can't decide that you owe me $1,000 without documentation and/or a trial. This is not only the case with money, but also ritual matters. A man must have his son circumcised. The responsibility rests solely with the Father. If he fails to do so, the Beit Din must step in and do it. If the Beit Din fails to act, the responsibility falls on every individual to act. (Of course, today one would go to jail for this). In halachah, we are doing the man a favor, which requires no assent). Now, a married man has certain obligations to his wife for the duration of the marriage. He must feed her, house her, provide her with sexual fulfillment, and clothe her. If he fails to do any of the above (other than a situation in which he physically cannot), he must give her a "get". This is a Torah obligation. The rabbis who support (and act on) this idea, have opined that if the husband has failed to provide a "get" under these circumstances, the Beit Din can, and should, act in his stead.They are, after all, doing him a favor, relieving him of all the marital obligations which he is not fulfilling. There is actually precedent for this. It was common practice of the Beit Din in Morocco in the 18th century!.
Most rabbis have rejected this solution, as they feel that the principle of "doing a favor for someone without his consent" cannot override the Torah's command for the husband to grant the "get". However, most of the responsa I have read on the issue have not been to the topic, but rather ad hominem (these rabbis can't compare with those rabbis). Some of the Israeli Batei Din are already acting on this, against the wishes of the Chief Rabbis. I hope and pray that either this, or another solution, will be found (and accepted) in the very near future.
Today, however, a far more common situation exists where a man may decide out of spite, or for purposes of extortion, to refuse his wife a get. Classically, the Beit Din would, in such cases, administer corporal punishment to "convince" the husband that it is in his best interest to grant the "get'. As this is illegal in nearly every country, it is now rarely done. Those who do it are subject to punishment by the Civil authorities. Several New York rabbis are now in prison on Federal charges for doing just this.
A group of more Left leaning Orthodox rabbis have come up with a solution, which they are actually putting into practice, but has met with great opposition from more "establishment" rabbis and organizations. It is the brainchild of the later Rabbi Marvin Antelman, a maverick (and some would say an eccentric) American rabbi. On the one hand, no one can question his sincerity. He was not afraid to tackle powerful people. In the mid 1980s, he had a woman wear a wire, thus exposing the head of the Tel Aviv Beit Din as a predator, extorting women for sexual favors in return for expediting their divorces. On the other, he was a fan of wild conspiracy theories, mostly around Shabbatean and Frankist heresies. He claimed that the Conservative rabbinical seminary, JTS, was a hotbed of Frankism, as well as is the ultra Orthodox Eidah HaHareidit of Jerusalem. In fact, Frankists were behind the Holocaust. (Search his name on YouTube, and you can find videos). I once met him at a wedding. He was a most likable man. Sadly for him, we had the same sense of humor. He came up with an idea that could save agunot. Although he was not widely known, his idea was picked up by Rabbi Emanuel Rackman, a powerhouse in Modern Orthodox circles. Most people today credit Rabbi Rackman with the idea, with the much lesser known Rabbi Antelman nearly forgotten.The idea goes like this:
In Jewish law, I can unilaterally impose a debt on myself, but can't impose a debt on someone else, without due process. In other words, i can decide I owe you $1.000, I can't decide that you owe me $1,000 without documentation and/or a trial. This is not only the case with money, but also ritual matters. A man must have his son circumcised. The responsibility rests solely with the Father. If he fails to do so, the Beit Din must step in and do it. If the Beit Din fails to act, the responsibility falls on every individual to act. (Of course, today one would go to jail for this). In halachah, we are doing the man a favor, which requires no assent). Now, a married man has certain obligations to his wife for the duration of the marriage. He must feed her, house her, provide her with sexual fulfillment, and clothe her. If he fails to do any of the above (other than a situation in which he physically cannot), he must give her a "get". This is a Torah obligation. The rabbis who support (and act on) this idea, have opined that if the husband has failed to provide a "get" under these circumstances, the Beit Din can, and should, act in his stead.They are, after all, doing him a favor, relieving him of all the marital obligations which he is not fulfilling. There is actually precedent for this. It was common practice of the Beit Din in Morocco in the 18th century!.
Most rabbis have rejected this solution, as they feel that the principle of "doing a favor for someone without his consent" cannot override the Torah's command for the husband to grant the "get". However, most of the responsa I have read on the issue have not been to the topic, but rather ad hominem (these rabbis can't compare with those rabbis). Some of the Israeli Batei Din are already acting on this, against the wishes of the Chief Rabbis. I hope and pray that either this, or another solution, will be found (and accepted) in the very near future.
No comments:
Post a Comment