Author: Chochmat Nashim

Readers of this paper will be aware of the firestorm surrounding the Domestic Abuse Act’s recent amendment that was sp ecifically crafted to help agunot — and the full-throated objection of the rabbinic courts.

The Federation Beth Din warned that if an aguna used the law without its express permission, it would result in the court being “unable” to issue a get.

In their letters, the Federation and London Batei Din claim to do their utmost to help women awaiting their freedom. Yet a recent JC report catalogued the despair and even suicidal thoughts of multiple women, and one man, who felt disregarded.

Perhaps this is not shocking, given that Rav Zimmerman of the Federation recently appeared on a podcast in which he called the JC a “tabloid newspaper that is anti-religious”. It seems they feel justified in dismissing the women and man who turned to the JC to have their stories told.

Having personally heard from women who have been through these Batei Din and who speak of being extorted for huge sums of money — giving up homes and even custody of their children in exchange for freedom — I can assure readers that their testimonies are not lies. Women have been left waiting decades for a get, even as their husbands have remarried and started second families.

Let’s be clear. The only reason this law was enacted is that the Batei Din do not use the power they already have to order men to give a get. Nor do they use their full abilities to enact communal pressure. Zimmerman claimed that refusers are split evenly down the gender line, even stating the well-refuted Israeli rabbinate claim that more women refuse than men. What he does not acknowledge is that for a person to be considered a refuser, the Beth Din must declare them one. Meaning that a woman can be waiting years, but if the Beth Din doesn’t order the man to give the get, she is not considered an aguna and he is not considered a refuser.

This matters — and is exactly why the UK Parliament needed to step in to save Jewish women.

The Batei Din claim that the law would make a get coerced, and thus invalid. But the law can’t force a get. At most, it can exact a price for making another person suffer. The concept of exacting a price for get refusal is not new, nor is it against halacha (as acknowledged in the Batei Din’s letter). When the community was smaller, excommunication, refusal of honours, shaming and even violence were used to persuade a get refuser to free his wife.

Today there are virtually no consequences. Men can move communities, remarry civilly and build new families, all while chaining their first wives. And this still this depends on the courts doing their job and calling a refuser a refuser. When they don’t, a man holds full standing in his community, regardless of his actions towards his wife. A woman cannot move on, lest she be labelled an adultress and her children illegitimate. Across the Jewish world, thousands of women are trapped in non-existent marriages, their freedom curtailed and their child bearing years passing them by.

This law has the potential to change reality for women in the UK. It could make get refusal painful, forcing the abuser to reconsider whether he wants to continue at all costs.

At the end of the day, nothing can deter someone who truly wants to cause someone else to suffer. Proof of this is the men in Israel who have been in jail for decades, choosing incarceration over obeying the Beth Din’s order to free their wives.

A get given because a man chooses what price he does or does not want to pay is not a “coerced” get. It is a valid and reasoned choice. People deserve the ability to prosecute their abusers. Removing that from them is a shocking violation of their civil — and religious — rights.

The communal upheaval over their position has shown the Batei Din that the community does not see them as allies, but rather as impediments to achieving justice and freeing Jewish women.

This is a tipping-point moment for the British Batei Din. They can choose to work with parliamentarians and advocates to be on the side of justice, or they can continue to be on the side of abusers.

Statements promising efforts to work together are not enough.

It is time to listen to experts and the women who are affected. It is time to act with humility and for justice. No longer must we stand by while our sisters’ blood is spilt.

Originally published in The Jewish Chronicle

The Jewish internet has been ablaze the past few weeks with extreme cases of get refusal and domestic abuse. These cases have highlighted what is wrong — and what can be right — about Jewish marriage and divorce.

Shira Isakov was beaten nearly to death by her husband on the eve of Rosh Hashana last year in Mitzpe Rimon, Israel. After months of surgery and rehabilitation, she filed for divorce. Her husband, Aviad Moshe, refused. The case drew national headlines for weeks and the public was suitably outraged. The rabbinic court judges threatened Moshe, already in jail for her assault, with solitary confinement. He gave the get.

In the US, Chava Sharabani has been waiting over 10 years for her get. Her refuser, Naftali Sharabani, lives freely in Los Angeles. When singer Dalia Oziel posted about Chava’s plight on her Instagram account, asking her followers to share the information about Naftali’s refusal, she sparked a revolution. Jewish women continue to follow the story and have posted Naftali’s face and name thousands of times. Oziel has not let up and in the words of the Lakewood Beth Din, succeeded in doing what they couldn’t (getting Naftali to respond to the Beth Din) for what they had considered a “dead case”.

There are many Shiras and Chavas — thousands of Jewish women around the world waiting for their freedom. The only reason these two have seen movement in the rabbinic courts is the public attention they garnered. In Israel alone, there are numerous other women, abused by their husbands and still awaiting their freedom.

It should not take a national outcry or an Instagram influencer to get the Jewish courts to free these women.

It must be said that there are options within Jewish law to dissolve dead marriages. They have been used for millennia. However, none of these are universally accepted and though there are brave rabbis and courts who do use them, they’ve been all but abandoned by most.

But there are steps that rabbinic organisations and courts around the world can take immediately, even without using halachic tools, to make a massive difference for women.

First, refuse extortion. Naftali, like many other husbands witholding a get, is demanding money in exchange for his wife’s freedom. Rabbinic courts need to shut this down. It must be made clear that a woman’s freedom is not up for ransom and that rabbis won’t sanction such behaviour. No woman should be made to pay for her freedom.

Second, recognise get refusal as abuse. In the UK, coercive or controlling behaviour laws have been used to free women since 2019, allowing them to receive a get. The threat of criminal action was the motivation these men needed to free their wives. The rabbinic courts should follow this lead. Shira won her freedom because images of her slashed face were on every major newspaper and media outlet. The Beth Din could not possibly deny the abuse done to her. There must be the same zero tolerance in all cases.

Third, make a wall of shame. Get refusers should not be able to live free and in the clear while chaining their spouses up. Their names and pictures should be publicised and kept on a database accessible to the public. Numerous men have given the get when faced with widespread public condemnation.

Fourth, no cold cases. The idea that Chava, a 35-year-old woman, is considered a “dead case” while her husband runs free in LA is shocking. Many cases in rabbinic courts have been resolved simply by not giving up and using creative thinking to solve them. The notion that we “give up” and raise our hands in defeat, allowing a man (women can refuse too but it is far more often men who deny a get) to chain his wife to a dead marriage is unacceptable.

Fifth, halachic prenups. While not currently used in UK rabbinic courts, these documents are used to prevent get abuse by starting a couple on the right foot, protecting one another from their worst selves. The document calls for an upkeep sum to be paid by the spouse that refuses divorce after a certain amount of time, incentivising the spouse to recognise that the marriage is over.

These concepts can be easily implemented, should we choose to protect the dignity of Jewish women and the integrity of Jewish marriage. Civil courts, social media shaming, public interest; is this the best we can do for Jewish marriage? Let Shira and Chava be the impetus for systemic change. Let us declare: No more get abuse.

Originally published in The Jewish Chronicle

Three women made headlines in the past week. Each was abused by her husband. One is dead. One nearly died. And the other is still chained to her abuser 30 years after she left him.

Diana Raz, z’l was shot dead in front of her children by her husband. She was 32 years old.

Shira Isakov was 31 when her husband stabbed and beat her nearly to death in front of her toddler.

Sarah (not her real name) was 30 when she left her husband after 10 years of abuse. She is now 60 and still waits for her freedom.

These women have been failed by the State of Israel twice. First, because the country never implemented the approved plan to fight domestic abuse. Second, because the state rabbinic courts not only sanction abuse, but participate in it.

In 2017, a NIS 250 million plan was approved to fight rising domestic abuse in Israel. This included increased social workers, anti-violence programs, additional police units to investigate abuse and more.

By the time the coronavirus pandemic hit in 2020, only NIS 50 million had been allocated. The pandemic and its accompanying lockdowns brought health concerns and economic woes, leading to a period of intense stress. As in the rest of the world,domestic violence increased in Israel, with a 30% rise in calls to hotlines across the country and overbooked women’s shelters.

Fay Sukenik of Ba’asher Telchi, which supports Haredi women through the divorce, process reports a 75% increase in calls seeking assistance this year – most due to incidents of violence. “Many women have lost their jobs or were put on unpaid leave and are dealing with their own fears as well as their children’s. Most calls have been for support and emergency assistance.” Her office is preparing for the expected increase in calls asking for help in the divorce process when lockdowns end.

Pnina Omer, director of Yad LaIsha, which represents women seeking divorce in the rabbinic courts, says her organization expects a significant rise in divorce cases as people go back to work and women are more free to call. Naavah Shafner of Mavoi Satum, which represents women denied a divorce by their husbands, expects the same.

The halachic (Jewish legal) aspects of ending marriage are too complex to delve into here (for more information listen to Chochmat Nashim’s podcasts and deeper discussions). Yet, it is important to note that because there is no civil divorce in Israel, every Jewish woman must go through rabbinic courts to end her marriage. Only men can give a divorce, and while the rabbinic courts have tools they can use – halachic and civil – to help a woman trapped in marriage, proof of abuse is not necessarily considered a valid reason for divorce. Indeed, women like Sarah have been sent back to their abusers against their wishes.

The phenomenon of thousands of Jewish women around the world trapped in marriage, awaiting their husbands’ willingness to provide a get, is a new one. They are not classical agunot, whose husbands have disappeared in war or while traveling. These women are mesuravot get – women whose husbands simply refuse to set them free.

The world has changed for women, and financial freedom means that being in a bad marriage is no longer preferable to being in no marriage. Yet, women are left trapped when the courts abet the abusers who keep them chained, refusing to use the tools at their disposal.

Let us be clear:

Denying someone her freedom is abuse. Anyone enabling that denial is a party to that abuse.

In addition to halachic tools, the state rabbinic courts have civil tools they can use to incentivize a man to release his wife. Invalidating a driver’s license, jail time, and shaming are all tools within their state-sanctioned toolbox – but most often, they lie unused beside the halachically oriented ones.

That is why when Shira, the woman whose husband all but killed her five months ago, received her get on Tuesday, February 10th, it was cause for celebration. There are others, women who have been nearly killed or abused for years, whose husbands are in jail for violence, and yet have not been ordered by the rabbinic court to divorce their wives.

The head judge in Shira’s case, Rabbi Edry, threatened to bring her husband in for daily hearings and throw him into solitary confinement (note that he is already in jail for her attempted murder). There is little doubt that the public’s interest in the case intensified the court’s willingness to use sanctions, and lit the fire under it to find a solution and get off the public’s radar. News that the woman who was nearly beaten to death could not get a divorce from her would-be murderer was, of course, everywhere – as were calls for the rabbis to take action to protect this woman.

The public saved Shira twice, first, when her neighbor heard her cries for help, and then when her story captured the nation’s outrage.

But Sarah has no champion. She sits and waits. 30 years after leaving her abuser, she is still chained to him in marriage. The rabbinic court has acceded to his every whim and request for reconciliation. And now, they’ve accepted his condition for her freedom. She must pay him the million shekels she won in family court that went to support their children over the past 30 years.

Jewish women routinely pay or surrender their rights for their freedom. Women give up child support, property, and even the right to charge their husbands with rape and assault – all with the approval of the state rabbinic courts.

Here, in the Jewish state, where Jews are supposed to be safe, Jewish women are not protected.

How can we work towards change?

Here are three things you can do today.

1 — Sign a halachic prenup. If you are already married, sign a post-nup. While there are different versions (listen here for more information), signing one can save your freedom. If you are a rabbi — don’t marry anyone without a halachic prenup. Want to host a pre/postnup party? Be in touch!

2 — Email your rabbi and shul board. Ask them to make prenups a part of the yearly programming. Ask them to speak about it, make it a normal part of communal life, and make your community prenup positive. It is impossible to know how many women you could be saving.

3 — Attend political parlor meetings. If you live in Israel, elections are coming! Ask party representatives what they plan to do to protect women. Ask them about implementing the budget and making halachic prenups a part of state marriages. Insist that they make women’s freedom and safety a priority.

Does a woman need to nearly die to earn her freedom in the Jewish state?
To live up to our values- Jewish and democratic – the answer must be,“NO!”

Originally published on The Times of Israel

Sign and graffiti designating women’s and men’s sides of the stairs, plus graffiti saying, ‘Passage for the immodest is forbidden.’ (Alisa Coleman) 

I have been a Beit Shemesh resident for 13 years. I came here to raise my children in Israel. To be part of Israeli society and to live as a Jew in the Jewish homeland.

It’s a beautiful city full of religious, ultra-Orthodox (Haredi), secular, and traditional Jews, or it was when I arrived. But soon the beauty of the city was marred by extremism, by those who outwardly shared my religion, but somehow began to worship “modesty” above all, to the point that women were all but asked to disappear from the public sphere.

                                                             
  Modesty sign hangs in Bet Shemesh. (Alisa Coleman) 

Slowly, I watched the women disappear. They were removed from advertisements and health clinic ads. Erased from posters and billboards. My daughters were told to sit in the back of the public bus on their way home from school be\cause “that’s where girls belong.”

When extremists came to the local Orot Banot girls elementary school and called little girls whores, I stood between them and the girls — and for my efforts, I was spit on by grown men in the pious attire of the ultra-Orthodox.

When extremists threw rocks at women’s heads — presumably emboldened by their modesty signs that tell women what they can and cannot wear and where they can and cannot be, I was there to protest.

When an IDF soldier was run off the road and crashed into a pole to avoid Haredim throwing rocks, myself and other activists staged a demonstration and called for an end to incitement against the Israel Defense Forces in our city.

At the demonstration against incitement. (Menachem Lipkin) 

When some Haredim made a practice of flinging dirty diapers and hurling eggs from their apartment balconies at our Modern Orthodox teenagers walking to volunteer on Shabbat afternoon, we were there to shepherd our kids through the mob on the street screaming at them.

Many of us Beit Shemesh residents, women and men, wanted our city freed from the demands of the most extreme elements in town. We worked hard to get an open-minded and tolerant mayor elected. She won, and we rejoiced in the miracle.

We had confidence that the graffiti calling women “whores” and Zionists “goyim” would never stand under her watch. We believed that the weak would be heard and the bullies put in their place.

Graffiti in Bet Shemesh of a Palestinian flag ‘Jews are not Zionists.’ (courtesy)
Graffiti in Bet Shemesh crossing out the Israeli flag and saying passage for immodest people is forbidden. (courtesy)

This turf war is fought in a million little ways. Some want a Haredi city, with Haredi rules and monolithic Haredi values (never mind that Haredim are not actually of one mind). Others want to live in a city where no one population makes rules for the others.

Currently, a new neighborhood is under construction. It is actually the only local area of many new neighborhoods that is officially planned NOT to be fully Haredi. And its streets are being given names. The proposal was to name the 12 streets of this neighborhood after heroes and heroines of Israel: Anne Frank, z”l, Hanna Senesh, z”l, Roi Klein z”l (who died saving others in war), Ilan Ramon, his wife Rona, and son Assaf z”l, and so on. The Haredi members of the Beit Shemesh city council opposed the idea and argued against these street names. Too many of them were the names of women. Really. Too many of these heroes were Zionists. Yes, really.

The decision was made to use the last names of some of the honorees. Not “Anne Frank Street,” but “Frank Street.” “Senesh Street.” Or in the case of the three Ramons, not “Ramon Family Street,” but “Shelosha Street” — the Three.

When the press got wind of the changes, the religious Zionist female mayor, Aliza Bloch, whom we worked so hard to help get elected, claimed that the very notion that the name changes were to eliminate the women’s names was “Fake News.” Rather, the changes were simply to streamline longer street names with one word each, and have uniformity in that way. After all, the street named for Yoni Netanyahu z”l, another hero of the state, killed at Entebbe, was to become Yonatan Street, and the one named for Eliraz and Uriel Peretz, both killed in action in Israel’s wars, would be “HeAchim” — brothers.

But her claim is easily dismissed if you read the official documents on the chosen names and her spokesperson finally acknowledged in an op-ed that the Haredi political parties did indeed object to the women’s names.

So the names are abridged, you might say, and you can’t identify the heroines and heroes of Israel. So what? Who cares about street signs?

You should.

Because nothing stands on its own when the battle is all around you. Every move to erase or marginalize women or IDF soldiers is a step towards a larger goal. It is not about modesty. It is a fight for the core values of Judaism and Israel.

The Haredization of Beit Shemesh is real, the turf war is in full swing, and it is the city that loses. Yet years ago, when this kind of thing was new, those who acknowledged the changes said, “It’s okay,” “Let’s be sensitive,” “It’s no big deal,” and, of course, “It’s their world; it doesn’t affect us.”

And now large swaths of Beit Shemesh youth have been raised with the conviction that women and Zionism are treif, taboo, unclean.

You don’t have to care what’s happening in my town, but please please pay attention in your own community. When you see extremism, tackle it immediately.

  • Don’t acquiesce to erasing women to be “sensitive” and “accommodate the needs” of those who won’t look at women.
  • Don’t normalize women being relegated to the far side of a mechitza for anything other than shul.
  • Insist that women be part of decision-making for your community/shul/school (though, as you see, women’s presence alone is not enough).
  • Do not allow intolerance to be tolerated! Ironic, yes, but intolerance is the one thing we must refuse to tolerate.

For ourselves and for our children, we must stand our middle ground, for at the other end of the path lies the road to Beit Shemesh.

 

How do the coronavirus guidelines tap into Jewish traditions of looking out for one another? Anne, Rachel, and Shoshanna navigate the tension between the personal and the collective, the reckless and redemption.

Who decides the correct and fitting manner to worship God? Just because others worship in a certain way, which may be seemingly worthwhile, if that approach was not commanded by God, it is out of bounds. Comparing the biblical narrative of the binding of Isaac to the story of the deaths of Aaron’s sons clearly teaches that God’s will and His will alone determines what is appropriate and beloved by God and what is not. The severity and swiftness of the punishment in the case of Nadav and Avihu powerfully demonstrates that even religious acts conducted with apparently worthy intentions can be unacceptable manifestations of fulfilling God’s will if they fall outside of mandated religious practice.

“And the Lord spoke unto Moses, after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they drew near before the Lord, and died” (Leviticus 16:1).

 

 

Search