Roentgen. Arusi doesn’t make reference to other causes: religious evaluator was scared of creating behavior during the times related to breakup and you may agunot lest they account fully for raising the number away from bastards worldwide if the their decisions are completely wrong
Certain say that the brand new inability of rabbinical courts to apply instance measures is due to the new resistance for rabbinic government to accomplish things that could for some reason force an effective son provide the newest rating, lest so it improve splitting up incorrect and subsequent relationship adulterous. Other people claim that the fresh new rabbinic courtroom experience off to maintain their benefits and will do-nothing that will infringe upon the fresh new built-in male privilege when you look at the halakhah.
R. Ratzon Arusi, who focuses primarily on Jewish laws within Bar-Ilan College, enumerates four reasons why there are agunot now, and why women are exploited and will wait ages ahead of getting the divorces they request: 1) expanding materialism, making the status drawn from the Rosh and you will Rabbenu curves connect PЕ™ihlГЎsit se Tam (the woman wants a divorce since this lady has set this lady attention toward other child) prone to end up being accepted while the cause of ework out-of the spiritual or municipal legal in order to deteriorate the fresh other side; 4) problem in the getting preparations because of the decree off Rabbenu Gershom (requiring the girl consent to have the get); 5) while the region played because of the battei din and you can religious evaluator. New evaluator makes legal behavior merely with respect to the greater part of the fresh new poskim, that is particularly hard into the problem of agunah; the latest evaluator remain very short time period on private cases, requiring the happy couple to return towards court several times with renewed arguments, thus undertaking pressure. Most elementary is the division anywhere between religion and you can condition, the spot where the secularists feel that how to changes halakhah would be to eliminate the power, due to the fact rabbinical response is considered the most great conservatism, so it’s unrealistic that they will do anything radical, such as enacting decrees or annulling marriage ceremonies.
not, only times which were about process of law for a long time try labeled this unique bet din, and that disregards the fresh hardships of one’s women in this new meantime
R. Arusi suggests that if we want a solution to depend on rabbis and Torah sages, that is, those who are duly appointed by Israeli law to make the decisions in divorce cases, we must take into account the causes of aginut mentioned above and create solutions in tune with those causes. He suggests that due to the tension between state and religion, the rabbis are particularly sensitive about the views of the secular majority. Only through the power of halakhah, commentary on it, and decisions about it, will a solution be found. Like Finklestein and others, R. Arusi believes that if the sanctions allowed by the 1995 Israeli statute were used even in cases where the decision is only to require a get (hiyuv), they could prevent aginut. He refers to the success of the special bet din in dealing with difficult cases of aginut. According to R. Arusi, we need only establish the regular use of this court, since the rabbinate would be happy to deal with any case which might possibly lead to aginut. This court deals intensively with each case until the get is given. R. Arusi suggests appointing an overseer of all divorce files. If there is any suspicion of aginut or if refusal to grant a get is found in any of the files, those cases should be referred to the special court. He argues against the proliferation of legal bodies dealing with the issue of divorce, claiming that in a situation where there are several courts which could have a stake in the divorce process, the bet din cannot work effectively. R. Arusi notes that some rabbis even claim that civil marriage has halakhic standing and would require a get le-humra (a writ of divorce required as a measure of added stringency) in order to allow rezerut still exists with civil marriage. This claim is made to keep control over marriage and divorce exclusively in the hands of the rabbis. R. Arusi believes that kiddushin is not only a private issue but also a matter of public concern and is, therefore, in need of communal “sanctification” and sanction. He is, however, assuming goodwill and willingness to cooperate on the part of the rabbinate, an unwarranted assumption in light of the complicity many battei din have shown when dealing with cases of extortion. R. Emanuel Rackman noted that the common divorce situation often makes the rabbi wittingly or unwittingly an instrument of extortion by the husband.
