“Another Success Story from the Rabbinical Courts. Truly?”
by Rivka Lubitsch, Rabbinical Court Advocate
Friday, 15 August, 2003

A week ago, a get was delivered. Like in every case of get delivery, there were mixed feelings of joy and sorrow. Joy, because the woman had been awaiting this golden moment for over five years. And sorrow, because in every divorce there are feelings of deep disappointment, memories of the bad years and the mistakes, and of course the children who suffered and will continue to suffer in the future. In this particular case, there was an additional cause for sadness, for in order to receive her divorce, this woman had to make far-reaching concessions. She waived all child support owed to her as well as future support, and she gave her husband a large sum of money, which she was forced to borrow from family and friends.

Through telling the story of A., I want to show the huge gap that exists between the expectations of women’s advocacy groups such as “Yad L’isha” or “Kolech” and the Rabbinical Courts themselves as to what role the judges should be playing in the divorce process. (In all fairness, I wish to point out that what I write here applies to many of the rabbinical court justices, but not to them all.) But even if it is perceived as “chutzpah” or audacity, I feel it necessary to say these things in order to focus on the procedure of the courts. I do not wish to malign the honor of the judges - an honor which they deserve, especially in light of their unquestionable Torah knowledge - I am nonetheless opening this important - even holy - subject for discussion.

A. had many complaints against her husband. Amongst other things, her husband never held a job, never helped support the children, and had an affair with another woman. But A’s main objection was to her husband’s cruel and vicious violence. He used to beat her head against the wall, to the point where she suffered from hearing loss. He beat her so severely she needed surgeries and medical transplants. Once he locked her in the house for three days. A. summarized her husband’s behavior for the courts with the following sentence: “He acted as though I were his possession.” After many years of abuse and mistreatment, and after a particularly violent episode, A. finally turned to the police. From that moment on, A. fought a valiant battle which concluded last week in the rabbinical court.

At first, A. turned to the civil court which issued a restraining order against her husband. She opened a file for property division and child support. After a while, the couple reached an agreement regarding property and signed it before a judge, giving it the authority of a judicial ruling. Afterward, A. sued for a divorce in the rabbinical courts. But the husband, who had never given his address to A., never appeared for any of the hearings. Subpoenas were issued to his mother’s address, and even the police were instructed to search for him, but four hearings went by and he simply did not show up. During this entire period of time, the husband also cut off all contact with his children, and needless to say he did not pay any child support, a violation of the civil court agreement. The rabbinical courts hired a private investigator to seek out the husband, as did A., but nothing turned up. One day, after almost a year of searching, A. saw her husband at a bus stop and, with the help of a friend, chased him by car. With the proper warrants in her hand, A. turned to the local police who cooperated and arrested her husband. The next day, he was led into the rabbinical court in handcuffs, but… the rabbinical court was in recess, and the judge on roster duty sympathized with him, actually saying to the couple “I see you are both chained to this marriage.” The judge let A’s husband out on 1,000 NIS bail, and did not request his home address.

To everyone’s good fortune, from this point on, the husband began to appear at hearings. For over a year, the rabbinical court would question the husband over and over. What is it that he wanted? And the husband continued to insist that he was only interested in “shalom bayit” - restoring peace to the family home. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, his lawyer was asking A. what she was willing to give in exchange for the get.

In this manner, the case dragged on. Neighbors testified to the husband’s violent rampages as well as his affair with another woman. Also brought before the court were the police reports and a recommendation from a social worker that the couple separate. After the testimonials, the case entered the summation phase, which typically lasts for several months. First, the woman’s advocate summarized her case, then the husband submitted his closing arguments, after which the woman’s counsel has right of rebuttal. At this stage, A. waited expectantly for the court to rule that her husband must produce a get. Although she understood that the ruling may not necessarily bring the divorce, she also understood that it was the only possible first step. And so, she waited, and waited… but the rabbinical court did not rule on her case. Instead, they called the parties back for an additional hearing. What for? The court explained that it wanted once again to hear both sides and whether or not an agreement could be reached. Nothing had changed; A. still asked for a get, her husband said “shalom bayit,” and his lawyer, on the sidelines, told A. that if she gave her husband something he would grant her the divorce. Several months passed, and still no ruling. The two sides were again summoned for a hearing. What for this time? The court wanted to know if there had been any change in the couple’s positions. This time, A. broke down and caved in. A week prior to the hearing, she informed her husband’s lawyer that she would give him the money and renounce child support, past and future, in exchange for her freedom. The result being that a week ago, A. received her divorce.

From the rabbinical court’s perspective, this is another success story. A get was granted without their involvement. The husband gave it of his own free will, and so there was no need to force or obligate him. There was no reason to apply sanctions or to send him to jail. And in the heavens above, it would not God forbid be recorded that the justices were involved in the case of a coerced divorce. True, the woman made far-reaching compromises, even at the expense of her children… but what is that compared with the justices’ difficulty in ruling on an issue as difficult as a chiyyuv get [obligating the granting of a divorce]?

Several questions beg to be asked:

During the course of several years, A’s husband did not appear at the hearings. Why didn’t the judges rule for the chiyyuv get in his absence? Isn’t it enough that a husband hides from his wife for more than four years and withholds personal information from her to prove that a divorce is in order?

Why did the justice on roster duty let the husband go on bail, without getting his address? How are we do understand that he took upon himself the risk of the husband’s escape, and the risk of leaving a desperate woman an aguna for a further four years or more, until the husband could once again be found?

Once the husband came to the hearings, why was the woman forced to bring testimonial proof of things that occurred during the course of their marriage? Is not the fact that he abandoned his wife and children without a trace more than four years before enough to rule in favor of the divorce?

After all testimony was given, why didn’t the court rule immediately for the chiyyuv get? Did the court not realize the extent of A’s suffering and understand that all she wanted was to open a new chapter of life, maybe to remarry and have children within the bonds of a sanctioned marriage?

Is the court utterly blind to the blackmail that the husband performed with the knowledge that his wife so desperately wanted her freedom?

Did the court not fear that a young, attractive and secular woman whose husband had left her five years prior would enter into a non-halachically sanctioned relationship with someone else, while still technically married? Was the court really more concerned about the possibility of issuing a coerced get than the possibility of a married woman being involved with other men?

 

 

The answer is straightforward: the rabbinical court does not want to rule. We are not talking about bureaucratic wrangling or case overload here, we are simply witnessing an acceptable method through which many rabbinical court justices delay the ruling as long as possible so that the parties may reach an agreement on their own. The fact is that there is no room for compromise when one side wants a divorce and the other side does not. These judges are evading a heavy responsibility, hiding under the cloak of “fear of heavens.” They prefer instead to sit with folded hands until the weak becomes weaker and finally gives in; by doing nothing, they are essentially siding with the strong. This is not a success story; rather, it is the story of indifference and the abetting of blackmail.

If this happened to just one woman, I would say nothing. But A’s story - with a minor detail changed here or there - is the story of many women who are waiting too long for a ruling that will enable them to gain their freedom. Too many women who are giving up and giving in to an “agreement” with their husbands. I call upon the rabbinical court justices to do all within their power to save the oppressed from their oppressors, and not to wait for the two sides to come to an agreement on their own. After all, that is not why their case was brought to court.

Return to Ohr Torah Stone