We are gratified that graduates of Ohr Torah Stone’s Women’s Advocacy Program are infused with the same crusading spirit of social justice which directed the program’s inception -- against all odds – fifteen years ago. Whether employed in OTS’s Legal Aid Center and Hotline or privately employed, alumnae of our school continue to be in the forefront of monumental changes - both in the realm of concrete legal precedents as well as in changes in the rabbinical establishment’s attitude toward women. The following cases clearly show the necessity and acceptability of women advocates as well as their profound influence in the rabbinical court system.

ATYPICAL PENALTY

Thirty-year-old P.L left her verbally abusive husband several years ago and has been attempting unsuccessfully to attain a divorce ever since. A year and a half ago, she was referred by a state social worker to Yad L’isha.

Osnat Sharon, the Legal Aid Center advocate who accepted P.L’s case, motioned the rabbinical court for a “chiyyuv get,” a compulsory order for the husband to grant his wife a divorce. She proved that P.L and her young son had been subject to untenable, violent outbursts of anger and endless barrages of offensive, hurtful and inappropriate behavior; she further showed that P.’s husband had no intention of either divorcing her or of attempting to seek professional help. The court agreed, and the next step was to sue in the court for child support and for sanctions to be imposed upon the husband for not complying with the “chiyyuv get” decree.

The rabbinical courts provide for various types of financial support with which a husband must provide his wife in the event of abandonment or divorce. Most are steeped in the concept of assistance to a woman who is now raising children alone, who was not previously working outside of the home, or who had supported her husband at the expense of her own ongoing education. There is, however, a rarely used concept discussed in the Talmud which consists of financial support resulting from her inability to remarry; it was this form of support for which Osnat sued. The surprise was that the court agreed.

“The court rarely awards support based upon this precept,” explains Osnat. “In this particular case, they accepted all of our legal arguments and awarded P.L. 2,500 NIS per month as a measure of pure penalty – in addition to awarding her child support. This is practically unheard of, and I’m convinced that it came about due to the changes that are slowly occurring in the attitudes of many of the rabbis who are finally understanding that we, women advocates, are not about antagonizing or upsetting the status quo but rather about coming to the aid of women who really need us.”

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Linda and Reuven R. married in Israel in 1986 and brought two sabra daughters into the world. In 1995, the family went to the US in order for Linda to complete her doctoral studies, but on a visit back in Israel in 1997, Reuven disappeared.

Linda was deeply concerned; she returned to Michigan, where they had been residing, in order to pack up their belongings and move back to Israel where she intended to resume her search for her husband. Once she arrived back in the US, however, Reuven suddenly reappeared, harassing her, stalking her, and phoning her at all hours of the day and night. Linda returned home to Israel, where she applied for a restraining order and filed suit for custody and child support.

Reuven took Linda’s return to Israel very hard, charging that she had violated the international child protection laws of the Hague convention by kidnapping his children and bringing them to a foreign country. Linda hired a team of lawyers to fight the charges and by 1999 an agreement was hammered out in the Israeli high court under which Reuven was obligated to send his wife a get from the US. A year went by and Linda was still waiting for her divorce; she petitioned the rabbinical courts for help in enforcing the ruling. Sanctions were applied, Reuven’s passport was revoked and he was stripped of his consular services in the US. But still he refused to send her a get…

Years of protracted and complicated legal battles ensued, with Reuven repeatedly insisting that the rabbinical court had no jurisdiction on the case since they were living in the US, and Linda repeatedly trying to prove that they were an altogether Israeli family whose marriage and divorce did fall under the purview of the Israeli courts. Finally, in 2004, having exhausted all of her resources, Linda arrived at Yad L’isha.

Vardit Rosenblum, an advocate in the Jerusalem office, is also studying civil law and as such was uniquely qualified to take Linda’s case. Almost immediately she applied for a “kfiyat get” – a ruling even stronger than a “chiyyuv get” – and prepared to fight for further sanctions to be imposed. “But realistically,” recalls Vardit, “these sanctions were practically irrelevant to Reuven, since he was living in the States. Even communal sanctions such as preventing him from being part of a prayer quorum and the like weren’t relevant as he was completely secular. Our only chance was to prove once and for all that the rabbinical court had international jurisdiction and could force him to deliver the get from a legal perspective. Unfortunately, the rabbinical court itself did not believe it had the power, based upon the previous case of Sabag v. Sabag, where the husband was allowed to return to his residence in the US without divorcing his wife.”

Vardit wrote a position paper so detailed and convincing that not only did the court accept her arguments, but it copied her points verbatim in handing down their ruling. By uncovering other little-known cases and simultaneously discrediting the Sabag case as a precedent, she won the recognition that Linda required in order to force her husband’s hand in the international arena.

Furthermore, once the court acknowledged that it wielded authority in the case, they accepted Vardit’s recommendations of harsh punitive measures, including a 100,000 NIS fine and the introduction of a monetary penalty for each day Reuven continued to refuse. But perhaps the most innovative of Vardit’s suggestions – and that which she believes tipped the scales – was the threat of the State of Israel approaching Reuven’s federal employer, the Ministry of Agriculture, and demanding that they cease his employment.

One month after the rabbinical court adopted this position, Reuven granted Linda her get.

JUST THE FACTS

Clients like Ruth K. remind us of the reason women advocates are necessary.

As you probably recall, before the establishment of the Women’s Advocacy School in 1991, only men were allowed to serve as legal advocates in the rabbinical courts, which govern all issues of marriage and divorce in Israel. Rabbi Riskin and OTS fought all the way to the Supreme Court for the right to train women advocates; as he pointed out, 50% of the litigants in cases of divorce are women, who might be too self-conscious to share painful, embarrassing or intimate issues involved in her suit. OTS argued that female plaintiffs should be entitled to retain female advocates, to ensure that all pertinent facts reach the ears of the judges who can then reach a knowledgeable, sound and just decision.

Ruth K is an example. Seven years ago, she left an abusive husband and hired a male advocate for help in attaining a divorce. The regional rabbinical court refused to rule for a “chiyyuv get,” claiming that there was no substantial reason indicating that Ruth’s husband should be ordered to grant her freedom. Ruth’s lawyer had appealed the decision and a date for the hearing was set, when she learned of Yad L’isha.

While perusing Ruth’s file, Yad L’isha staff noticed that the regional court’s decision said “the husband perpetrated acts that were displeasing to his wife” but did not elaborate, and immediately understood that the shy, ultra-Orthodox woman had not shared intimate details of abuse with her lawyer -- putting her case at a distinct disadvantage.

“I explained to Ruth that as difficult as it may be to relate details, it is imperative in order for her case to be viewed fairly,” recalls advocate Dina Reitchik, who works in the Center’s Tel Aviv office. “I’ve seen this over and over: with a little bit of prodding and a lot of sympathy and compassion, I was able to get her to open up and talk about the most horrific scenarios she experienced in her marital bedroom. She was crying throughout most of our conversation.”

Ruth’s male advocate acknowledged to Dina that while he had suspected severe physical and sexual abuse, he did not feel comfortable broaching the subject with his client because he knew she would be too embarrassed and was afraid of causing her to feel guilty or ashamed.

Dina re-wrote the appeal, incorporating the details that were necessary for the judges to reach a just decision. During the hearing, Ruth was questioned in detail; in addition to providing representation, Dina was there to support Ruth and help her articulate her emotions. Although Ruth’s husband attempted to prove that she was making up stories, the justices accepted Dina’s explanation and understood that she had not been able to tell her side of the story until she had a woman representing her. Ultimately, they handed down the desired ruling of a ‘chiyyuv get;’ Yad L’isha has now moved for communal sanctions to be imposed upon Ruth’s husband until he agrees to divorces her. Yad L’isha is confident that the rabbinical court will rule in Ruth’s favor, imposing such restrictions as preventing him from receiving an aliyah to the Torah or being part of a prayer quorum. Because his lifestyle is ultra-Orthodox, they believe that this will sway him to finally grant his wife the freedom she so deserves.

Return to Ohr Torah Stone