CROWN HEIGHTS [CHI] — The Crown Heights Debate Club hosted their kickoff event Thursday at Mimulo Flower Shop, addressing the agunah crisis in a new and innovative fashion. With a shared message of calling the community to action, the panel consisted of Mrs. Bronya Shaffer, resident scholar on AskMoses.com and Ask-the-Rabbi respondent for Chabad.org, and Jeremy Stern, director of case management at the Organization for the Resolution of Agunot (ORA).
Agunah Crisis Addressed in Crown Heights
CROWN HEIGHTS [CHI] — The Crown Heights Debate Club hosted their kickoff event Thursday at Mimulo Flower Shop, addressing the agunah crisis in a new and innovative fashion. With a shared message of calling the community to action, the panel consisted of Mrs. Bronya Shaffer, resident scholar on AskMoses.com and Ask-the-Rabbi respondent for Chabad.org, and Jeremy Stern, director of case management at the Organization for the Resolution of Agunot (ORA).
As a prime example of today’s agunah crisis, Stern relayed a brief story about a recent Rabbinic ruling that went unheeded by the community. When the Bais Din declared that a certain recalcitrant husband be ostracized from a Brooklyn community, not a single community member showed up to an organized protest.
“This is a community issue,” he continued. “Communities need to get together, enforce the Bais Din, and say ‘we will not tolerate this.’”
On either side of the customary partition, about 30 Jewish men and women listened with rapt attention as the two panelists set the stage for contemplation, discussion, and debate surrounding components of the evening’s topic.
As defined on Chabad.org – the largest Torah content website – agunah is the Hebrew word for an “anchored woman”; a woman whose husband has disappeared and it is not known with certainty whether he is dead or alive; she is thus forbidden to marry unless a) the husband is located and grants her a legal divorce, or b) careful investigation by rabbinical authorities uncovers admissible evidence of his death.
“Although the issue of missing husbands is generally not the case today – aside from extraordinary circumstances such as 9/11 or men who are MIA in war,” said Shaffer, who has until now not addressed this issue publicly in such a manner, “the plight of an agunah in modern times is almost always the case of a woman whose husband withholds a Jewish writ of divorce – known as a get – as a means of extortion or other self-serving purposes.”
While picking at home-baked cookies and sipping hot drinks, the audience played an active role in the discussion, adding personal insight and raising concerns.
Organization for the Resolution of Agunot
Stern described the mission of his organization, ORA – “our modus operandi is to facilitate an amicable resolution to contentious Jewish divorces when possible, but apply all legal pressure when necessary to ensure that a get is given without any strings attached” – and gave a brief history surrounding the origin of the get, as well as moderations in Jewish divorce law that have been made over decades in concordance with the evolvement of modernity.
Since according to Jewish law a woman may only be married to one man at a time, in order to know who fathered her child, a woman whose husband could not or would not issue her a get is prohibited from remarrying.
According to Stern, one of the reasons there are so many agunot – and ORA recently resolved its 107th case – is that with the installment of civil courts, the Jewish community tends not to hold the Beis Din or their rabbinic rulings in as high regard. Therefore, when the Beis Din rules that a noncompliant husband be ostracized from a community, the community often does not comply.
The number of agunot has increased over the years with the steady rise of the divorce rate. And the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution makes obtaining a get more difficult than a civil divorce.
“When a husband disappears, leaving his wife an agunah, that is a Jewish tragedy,” said Shaffer. “In circumstances where a man refuses to give his wife a get, every step must be taken to free her.”
A Proposed Solution
Stern encouraged the implementation of a “binding arbitration agreement,” devised by the Beis Din of America, which essentially is a prenuptial agreement that requires a fair impartial post-marriage mediation, by a panel of Rabbis, to ensure that a get would be granted. Stern compared this prenuptial to life insurance, arguing that no one expects to die, yet people purchase life insurance just in case.
So too, Stern contented, spouses should obtain marriage insurance.
This proposal elicited mixed reaction.
One girl expressed her fear that an agreement may create a psychological impediment to a lasting marriage.
Eli Federman, third year law student at City University of New York School of Law, on the other hand, announced that his take-home message was “to standardize and destigmatize the taboo surrounding prenuptial agreements, in order to minimize the risk of a spouse refusing to give a get in the event of a divorce.”
By the end of the night, the panelists both agreed that while prenuptial agreements have become more accepted in the last few years, many rabbis have been reluctant to support the concept.
A question from a woman in the crowd: What measures can be taken to persuade a husband to give his wife a get?
When a husband is not heeding the Bais Din’s ruling, “anything and everything should be done – since it is abusive behavior,” Shaffer responded, “yet a get cannot be forced.”
“We try to apply legal communal pressure,” Stern answered. “We protest in front of his home, his job… whatever possible.”
While Shaffer insisted that a get be the first order of business when a Bais Din rules that a marriage be dissolved, Stern said that although he does not agree with Torah law’s approach, there are Batei Din who insist that a civil divorce should precede the get; the reason being that the husband should not rescind the get afterward, saying that he gave it on condition that his expectations be met.
“When you have someone committed to Torah ideals, this does not happen,” Shaffer said. “One is clearly not committed to Torah if he is using the power Torah gives him unjustly.”
“From what I’ve seen,” commented Federman, “most of the Jewish community sympathizes with the plight of the agunah, but few have the courage to speak out and discuss meaningful solutions. It was a relief to see the panelists at the debate discussing legal, social, and religious issues, as well possible avenues for dealing with this crisis lurking in the shadows of thousands of Jewish women who are prevented from getting remarried because of recalcitrant spouses who refuse to give a writ of divorce. I salute the panelists.”
Both panelists urged community involvement in upholding the Bais Din’s authority and enforcing their rulings on this sensitive matter, in order to hinder the perpetuation of such abuse.
The Crown Heights Debate Club’s future topics under consideration are: racism in Crown Heights, Jewish education and school systems, university education, homosexuality in Judaism, and power politics in Crown Heights.
For more information on Crown Heights Debate Club and to get involved, visit them on Facebook or e-mail them at chdebateclub@gmail.com.
Boruch ben Tzvi (A H)HaKohaine Hoffinger
BS“D
”When a husband is not heeding the Bais Din’s ruling, “anything and everything should be done – since it is abusive behavior,” Shaffer responded, “yet a get cannot be forced.”
We’ve all heard of cases where the husband is forced by being ‘kidnapped’ and locked in a secret room.
They’ve given a get. Reason argues that ‘He really wanted to give the get.’
Yanky N.
Well written article, but like much journalism today it seems to take a single, embracing view of an issue. The author — and the speakers at the event — might have done well to research and integrate in to their discussion why “rabbis have been reluctant to support the concept” of a prenuptial agreement to give a divorce. If this gathering was meant to be a debate, this would have been the issue to hone in on because it is where disagreement lies. Unfortunately, the question this article begs is completely ignored.
klonimus
An abusive husband who withholds a get from his wife, will do so even if he had signed a prenuptal agreement. He won’t respect his prenuptal agreement. To stipulate before marriage that if he would withhold a get the marriage should be nullified retroactively is big problem al pi halachah (it would mean that they lived x amount of years not al pi Torah (if there are children – another problem what their status would be) etc etc
Lepoel this entire idea of signing such a contract before marriage is meaningless and does NOTHING to prevent the “agunah” issue.
What helps is one thing only, namely to intimitade him, and make his life miserable wherever he is (shul, work, home) until he breaks and agrees to give the get.
:-)
You tell ’em Yanky!!
Dovber
In respect to what Yanky N. wrote, kudos. Very good point indeed. Regarding the issue in general, this is not a woman’s issue. I was was told from a person that deals with this issue that there are an equal number of male agunahs. sounds strange, but it is possible. i even knew of one. just a thought.
confused
B“H
So, who (in Crown Heights) has the Beis Din ordered us to ostracize, due to his leaving his wife an agunah? A list should be published.
What does this ostracism consist of? Not doing business with him? Not acknowledging his presence? Not having him as a guest? Making fun of him in public? Scolding him to go away in public? I truly mean this as a serious question; B”H I know so little about this subject.
This subject is important, but it also brings up a lot of questions.
Can someone please answer?
green
this is the most important topic i could think of to start off this debate forum…..not enough attention is given to this serious problem faceing klal yisroel and yashar koach to the people who have put in time and energy into helping this agunah crisis
Eli Federman
The article slightly misstates my quote. It should read: “It was a relief to see the panelists at the debate discussing legal, social, and religious…[remedies]… for dealing with this crisis lurking in the shadows of thousands of Jewish women who are prevented from getting remarried because of recalcitrant spouses who refuse to give a writ of divorce. I salute the panelists.”
I also benefited from Jeremy Stern’s discussion of the creative legal arguments that women could use in order to pressure
their former spouse into giving them a get. I learned that N.Y.
Domestic Relations Law Section 236B allows the court to consider the failure to remove a barrier to remarriage as a factor in monetarily penalizing the recalcitrant get-refusing spouse when it comes to the distribution of marital property and that several trial level courts have upheld IIED (Intentional Infliction of Emotion Distress) tort claims and domestic violence claims against those refusing to give a get. I encourage women who are victims of get-refusal to raise these legal challenges.
To Boruch Hoffinger
There are many Teshuvos which discuss that issue precisely: The Rambam writes that we force the man to give the get and to say “i want to give it” and that would be enough. Chassidus explains that this is because every Jew has a neshamah that only wants to do what Hashem asks of him and because this is what he must do according to the Torah, he “really” as in his real self wants to do it. However if he claims later that he was under duress and gave the get unwillingly then the get is nullified. So the Poskim try to find the balance where is that line between force and “real will”.
Milhouse
You’re all forgetting one thing: a beis din can only force a man to agree to give a get in those cases where his behavior has caused the beis din to rule that he must give one al pi din. In MOST CASES this is not so. A wife is NOT entitled to leave a marriage and receive a get just because she feels like it; a husband in that situation has every right to withhold his consent, or to put a price on it. Similarly, since Rabbenu Gershom, the wife’s consent is also needed for a get, except in those cases where her behavior entitles the husband to his freedom; in most cases if he wants the get and she doesn’t (and this happens just as often as the other way around), he must pay her whatever it takes to obtain her consent. In such cases the person who wants the get is NOT an ogun/agunoh; they always have the option of begging forgiveness and staying in the marriage.
Yanky N.
Milhouse – thank you for explaining this important point. Contrary perhaps to the thrust of this event, no Jewish community maintains that a husband can indefinitely withhold a get. To be sure, we all agree that sometimes a husband should be compelled to give a get. However, some people or groups always side with the women, believing that a man who will not deliver a get immediately is recalcitrant and attempting to cause vengeful strife. The same people or groups also tend to believe that these men are being shielded from moral and legal responsibility to act by their rabbanim and communities. Before making broad accusations, due consideration ought to be given to the fact that each marriage has its individual circumstances. There are two parties to every marriage and each has their own story and gripes against the other.
Just to point out to Mr. Federman, this is what I meant when I said to you privately that resort to DRL sec. 236(b) must be done “in good faith.” It certainly should not be used as a tool to needlessly delay or pressure the get through litigation.
DrumIntellect
Some of these groups that protest in front of the husband’s home in order to embarrass him do so out of ignorance and prejudice. The people leading these organizations may have their hearts in the right place, but often their minds are not.
Sadly, some women lie by claiming their husband’s are recalcitrant and these groups leap to protest without a clear understanding of the situation.
An Attorney
To Klonimus: You are correct in saying that a recalcitrant Husband may choose to ignore his obligations set forth in the Pre-Nup. However, Pre-Nups are legally enforcible agreements to arbitrate (i.e. arbitation agreement) enforcable in civil court. State civil courts do order parties to honor these agreements. There is no issue that the Courts are involved in religious law. They are merely enforcing a neutral contract claim. So once signed by both parties, the Pre-Nup cannot be ignored without any consequenses.
AH
Milhouse: see Rambam, Hil. Ishus 14:8. She does have the right to receive a get “just because she feels like it,” since as the Rambam puts it, she’s not a captive to be forced to cohabit with someone she hates. But you’re correct that “there’s a price on it,” since in that case she forfeits her kesubah payment, as well as any other property that he gave her during the marriage.
happily married mother
Name & Shame the creeps who refuse to give a Get. If there are any in Crown Heights, tell us & maybe we can put pressure on them to do the right thing.
Hey Yanky
I was thinking the same thing, What place does a statment like
“rabbis have been reluctant to support the concept” have in a debate that was meant to address that issue.
anyway, I had been planning to be there and I’m sure I would have loved it but I couldn’t make it..I’ll look out for the next time.
~ A fan of your writings since T.G.I.F., CT
WolfishMusings
Kloinimous wrote:
“(if there are children – another problem what their status would be) etc etc”
There would be no problem with the children regardless of whether or not the marriage was valid.
A child born of unwed parents (who are not otherwise forbidden to each other) is a perfectly “kosher” child in terms of their status. There is no issue of mamzerius at all. In fact, you couldn’t even say the child was a ben niddah since the wife presumably was keeping TH during the time of her “marriage.”
The Wolf
Resident
Its not just about a get anyone who does not show up to a din torah or shows up but will not do as they say a list should be published so we should all know who they are and how to treat them!!!
Eli Federman
Haha Yanky I thought that was you. I thought you were referring to the IIED and domestic violence claim. The DRL sec. 236(b) applies in any situation where a spouse has placed any barrier to remarriage. Its hard to think of situations where that statute could be raised in bad faith. If the get is given DRL sec. 236(b), as I understand it, cannot be raised and won’t factor into the equitable distribution of assets.
Milhouse
AH, you have mistranslated the Rambam. This is a family forum, so translating it correctly is not appropriate, but everyone can look it up and see what the Rambam says. He does NOT say that “be forced to cohabit with someone she hates”; in fact she CAN be forced to do that. What she cannot be forced to do is something else; and since this is so, and since he doesn’t have to pay her a penny, he has no reason NOT to give a get.
But that is only when she says in good faith “me’astihu” (which does NOT mean “I hate him”); see 14:10 that if she admits she is only doing it to punish him for something then she has to wait a year for her get, during which time she is not entitled to anything from him, and she is to be publicly shamed.
Then see 24:18 that a woman who doesn’t make the claim we’re talking about, but does claim to be assur to her husband, is NOT entitled to a get, EVER, because maybe she’s only saying it in order to get out of the marriage. If you were right, that a woman is entitled to a get just because she feels like it, then why is this woman not entitled? The answer is that as a general rule wives (and since Rabbenu Gershom husbands) are NOT entitled to a get except in some unusual circumstances (e.g. violence ch”v). With those exceptions, the only way to dissolve a marriage is by mutual consent. You got married by mutual consent, and you can’t get out of it without the same consent. If your spouse demands money for his/her consent, pay up or stay.
Milhouse
I should also add that in the circumstances of the Rambam you quoted, where the wife is entitled to a get, she is not entitled to a penny from him. All she can take is whatever she brought into the marriage and that still exists. Therefore if she goes to court and gets any money from him, he is entitled to withhold the get until she gives back everything she took. She is not an agunah, she is a thief.
Pay up or stay???????
Pay up or stay? What kind of crazy comment is that?? Do you really think the only kind of abuse women suffer today is violent abuse?? What about emotional abuse? blackmail? A husband/father who does nothing, gives nothing, cares nothing about his family (i.e. wife and children.) Why does this women not have the right to be free of this man? Why would she need to PAY him?? Pay up or stay – sorry but that is the most twisted comment I have heard yet. Obviously you do not know (or dont care to) the stories of many agunas in our community. Perhaps you should take the time to speak to some of them. No sane person in their right mind wakes up one morning and for no reason at all decides they want out of a marriage. Its usually after years of suffering that culminates in such a drastic step. A little rachmanus please!!
Impressed
I am overwhelmed with the use of language and sophistication. Reading this developed article, written by a young Lubavitch girl truly amazes me. Additionally, the comments composed by young lubavitchers, creates a whole new blueprint of the Lubavitch generation of today. Superficially, the comments were well-polished, grammatically. And the ideas established a sense of understanding in mature matters. I believe that each person has an impact on this world, and thus the importance of higher education is invaluable. We need to take advantage now and advance in our learning, whether it’s Gemara, Literature, or History of Law. The further we advance, the more we realize how much more there is to be learned.
relevant essays
critique of the DA prenup: https://www.scribd.com/doc/259184904/The-BDA-Prenup-Flawed-and-Destructive
critique of the idea that get refusal is always wrong: https://www.scribd.com/doc/256755739/Fair-Terms-for-Divorce-A-Halachic-Right