Religious leaders still divided over new agunot amendment

Rabbis and religious MKs split on whether or not the pro-feminist legislation is in accordance with Orthodox Jewish values.

By MATTHEW WAGNER
shlomo amar 88 (photo credit: )
shlomo amar 88
(photo credit: )
Rabbis and religious MKs are split on whether or not pro-feminist legislation aimed at aiding agunot is in accordance with Orthodox Jewish values. Chief Sephardi Rabbi Shlomo Amar was adamantly opposed to the legislation, as were Shas and United Torah Judaism MKs. Even the more moderate National Religious Party and National Union MKs either opposed the legislation or were absent from voting. The outstanding exception was NRP Chairman Zevulun Orlev, who was involved in drafting the amendment to the Financial Relations Law and voted in favor. Several modern Orthodox rabbis also supported the law, including Rabbi Shlomo Riskin of Efrat and Rabbi Yuval Cherlow of the Petah Tikva Hesder Yeshiva. The amendment gives divorce courts the power, 12 months after the divorce process is initiated, to split up assets accrued during a marriage. The financial aspect of the divorce settlement can now be finalized even before the giving of a get [divorce writ]. Prior to the amendment, the giving of the get was tied to the overall divorce agreement, which includes financial matters and child custody issues. Often, the giving of the get, which must be done with the agreement of both husband and wife, was used by the financially stronger side - usually the man - as a bargaining chip to obtain more assets or child custody rights. The get is a particularly effective bargaining chip since according to Jewish law, a woman cannot remarry until she receives one. Women who have begun the divorce process but are waiting for a get from an intransigent husband are known as agunot, or "chained" women. If the woman bears children to a man who is not her husband before receiving a get, the children are considered mamzerim (children born out of illicit sexual unions). Before the amendment, a stubborn husband could prevent a woman from legally remarrying until he received a divorce settlement that was financially attractive from his point of view. As a result of the amendment, the get can no longer be used as a bargaining chip. Rather the financial matters are decided in court, and the assets and other rights split up between the husband and wife before the get is given. A spiteful husband can still deny his wife a get if he wishes, but the amendment removes the financial motive for doing so. Rabbis and religious legislators gave several reasons for opposing the amendment. Rabbi Eliyahu Ben-Dahan, administrative head of the Rabbinic Courts, said that the legislation would encourage the quick dissolution of Jewish families. "After this amendment, people will be able to get divorced without ever having to seriously discuss the possibility of reconciliation," said Ben-Dahan. "It will undermine the Jewish value of doing everything possible to salvage a marriage, something secular people don't appreciate enough." NU-NRP's Levi said that the amendment would increase the number of mamzerim. He argued that secular women won't bother waiting around for a get if the financial matters connected with the divorce have been settled. Shimon Ya'acobi, a legal advisor to the rabbinical courts, said that some rabbis, including chief rabbi Amar, were concerned that if a husband were forced to give a get after a court-ordered divorce settlement which he opposed was handed down, the get would be invalid - a get me'useh. In contrast, Cherlow, a leading member of Tzohar Rabbis, an organization of modern Orthodox rabbis that has in the past openly clashed with the Chief Rabbinate, argued that the positive aspects of the amendment outweighed the negative side effects. "As a rabbi, I have a deep interest in preventing the exploitation of Halacha by the financially strong side during a divorce," said Cherlow. "The amendment achieves this goal." Cherlow said that he was aware of the chief rabbi's opinion that the amendment might create the halachic problem of get me'useh. "But when I weigh that danger against the benefit that this amendment offers, my conclusion is clear," he said.