Calling into question a divorce that has long been in effect has serious, and potentially devastating, ramifications for real people.
Beyond the fate of this one woman. Rabbi Yosef’s actions are dangerous in the extreme for halachic Judaism as a whole.
They undermine the authority of the Beit Din itself.
Every divorce is granted under the auspices of a rabbinic court. If another rabbinic court can come along and revoke the first court’s divorces (or declare them null and void), then no Beit Din may be considered reliable when it comes to divorce, and its status-changing implications…
Yes, the law is on the books that one court can undo the edicts of a previous court — but only under certain conditions of established greatness, and only when it comes to legislative acts, which can’t be enacted in this day and age with no Sandhedrin. YES, halachic disputes happen all the time. They are built into the system. But when a beit din’s decision on status takes effect, it’s considered sacrosanct.
They undermine the “forever” status of divorce.
Revoking a get sets a very dangerous precedent. If an unrelated court can come along and revoke (or declare null and void) one divorce, even given its unusual circumstances, what is to protect any divorce from the same? Every presumed divorcee should hesitate before marrying again, lest she risk subsequent accusations of adultery. Indeed, every post-divorce marriage risks being called into question.
From a human perspective, this is terribly difficult. How can any divorced person move on with his or her life if the divorce can be questioned? The potential ramifications of this are endless and chaotic.
The human dimension of this specific case.
This woman was married for seven years to a man she knew would not regain consciousness. She’s only 34-years-old. Chaining her to someone whose body functions only by virtue of machines for the rest of his life when there is a legitimate halachic mechanism to release her that was approved by the Tzfat Beit Din is cruel.
In truth, the fact that Rabbi Yosef and many others would convene with the question of revoking this get calls into question our ability to rely on our rabbis to protect our widows, our orphans, our converts, and even Halacha — which allows for this kind of divorce.
At Monday’s Knesset debate on the Mikveh Bill, those in attendance were treated to mansplaining on an institutional level, some serious political games and, possibly, a bit of fraud.
Background
In Israel, what a woman does in the mikveh is not simply her own business. The Chief Rabbinate, religious councils and the balanit (mikveh attendant) are all involved. Women whose immersion practices and traditions are at odds with the dictates of the Rabbinate are often refused access to the publicly-funded mikvaot. In order to put a stop to this, a number of lawsuits have been filed with the Supreme Court in the past few years. Though successful in theory, the rules which establish women’s rights in the mikveh have not been put into practice. Thus, in a new suit, filed by the organization ITIM, 13 women are suing the Chief Rabbinate. The hearing is set for later this month.
Earlier this year, another Supreme Court case was filed – and won – about mikveh use. This case made it illegal to refuse the right to use state-funded mikvaot for Conservative and Reform conversions.
It was this case that led MK Moshe Gafni of United Torah Judaism to sponsor the so-called Mikveh Bill. The original writing of the bill states that “using a public purification mikveh, which is intended for immersion for purification or for conversion purposes, will only be permitted for halakhic immersion, conforming with the halakha (religious law) and with Jewish custom according to the Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish law) and the rulings of the Chief Rabbinical Council in Israel.”
While Gafni claims that the law is simply to ‘safeguard Judaism’ and prevent non-Orthodox conversions in state mikvaot, the people who will be most affected by the bill are Orthodox and traditional Jewish women who use the mikveh monthly.
How so? Under this ruling, women may only use the mikveh according to the Chief Rabbinate’s interpretations of Jewish law and tradition. If a woman’s tradition or ruling by her rabbi are not in line with the rulings of the Chief Rabbinate, she can be denied use of the mikveh. For example, women are barred from immersing without an attendant (despite this being permitted by the Shulchan Aruch). The bill also bars single women, women preparing to ascend the Temple Mount and women who would like to immerse for whatever purposes that they may choose — for example, to renew themselves after trauma or to mark an occasion (see here for more).
The bill was signed by 11 male MKs from UTJ, Shas and HaBayit HaYehudi and one female MK: Shuli Moalem of Bayit Yehudi. From the beginning, however, Moalem made her support for the bill contingent on key changes to the bill’s wording that would protect the women who use mikvaot, allowing them to immerse according to their own traditions.
Monday, June 5, 2016
The debate was nearly over before it began. In attendance were: MKs Gafni, Eichler, Azulay, Moelem, Azaria, Lavie, Stern, Swid, Glick, and Paran. Also present were representatives of numerous organizations, as well as individual women for whom autonomy and privacy in the mikveh are vital. It was standing-room-only; nonetheless, many of the men in the room seemed bewildered as to why so many women were present for the discussion.
The discourse was truly shocking. The concerns of religious and traditional women, whom the religious parties claim to protect, were dismissed completely out of hand.
The Play-by-Play
Because Gafni had not disclosed changes he had made to the bill, Moelem insisted on tabling the discussion.
MK Shuli Moelem. “You can’t expect us to debate the bill if you’ve refused to publish the wording of the bill!”
MKs Rachel Azaria and Aliza Lavie, as well as Elazar Stern echoed Moelem’s demand. Gafni responded: “I never imagined that the wording of the law would be so important that anyone would need to read it first!”
Committee chair of the debate MK Amsallem of Likud, together with MKs from UTJ and Shas, insisted that the debate go forward, but the women MKs were having none of it. They vociferously opposed the bill for being harmful to women.
MK (Yesh Atid) Aliza Lavie pointed out that instead of promoting religious observance, this bill will actually result in violations of religious practice as long as the religious institutions continue to dismiss women’s concerns about the mikveh.
MK Aliza Lavie.”Fewer women will immerse in the mikveh because of this law!”
Rachel Azaria (Kulanu), furiously argued that it was unacceptable to reject the legitimate concerns and experiences of women in the mikva when women are the ones who are most affected and who have so much at stake if this bill is passed. She shouted over their interruptions and protestations that they were stripping women of their rights and traditions without hearing women out. Her passionate outburst resulted in her forcible removal from the room.
Throughout these exchanges, Gafni kept repeating his claim that women have nothing to worry about. But his claim that “this law doesn’t affect women at all!” is disingenuous, given that, as a man in the ultra-Orthodox community, he knows full well that married women immerse in the mikveh regularly. How could he claim women would not be affected by the changes his bill makes to the most intimate and feminine space in Judaism?
MK Moshe Gafni
Indeed, his statement is laughable. To suggest that a law governing use of the mikveh won’t affect women is preposterous. Even to suggest, as he has done, that the bill does nothing more than establish the status quo is problematic; as Moalem pointed out, the status quo isn’t enough. That’s why women have been bringing suits for some time! Moreover, Gafni and several of the other male MKs present appeared to willfully ignore the implications of the bill that the female MKs were very loudly explaining to them.
When after an hour, the actual text of the revised bill was produced for the other MKs, it was immediately clear that the wording had been dramatically altered from the previous version and that Gafni had tried to hide it. MK Michal Rozen (Meretz) left no room for doubt: “I’m looking at both versions of the bill, the old and the new. This is not a revision of the the bill. These are two different bills.”
MK Michal Rozen
The legal advisor began reading the new bill aloud and the objections began in earnest. In response, Gafni screamed that it was not the legal advisor’s place to comment on the legality of the bill. He rose from his seat and yelled that it was “none of your business,” and that he was interfering with coalition agreements of which this bill is a part. Then he stormed out.
With Gafni gone and the clock ticking, MK Amsallem finally allowed four non-MKs to speak and learned a bit about what is at stake beyond a coalition agreement — and on whose (naked) backs this legislation tramples.
The first of these four, Keren Hadad Taub of Advot,, explained that most of the people affected by this bill are women, not only because it is women who use the mikveh regularly, but because the overwhelming majority of converts in Israel are female. The male MKs’ were surprised to learn this critical piece of information, the knowledge of which is vital to knowing how the bill will play out in practice. There is no way one can understand the real life implications of a bill without knowing who the bill affects.
Roni Hazon Weiss
“I hope you sleep well at night knowing that women have stopped going to the mikveh because of you,” saidfounder of T’nu Litbol Be-Sheket (LINK), a movement advocating for women’s rights in the mikveh, and secretary general of Yerushalmim party.
Rivka Shimon of Women for the Mikdash also pointed that, “this [bill] prevents women — married and single — from going up to Har Habayit.”
MK Amsallem interrupted her: “Wait, you’re saying that if a single woman shows up to the mikveh to immerse, they will tell her no?” The frustration in the room was palpable as the women answered with an exasperated “YES!”
The Core Issue
Amsallem was one of few male MKs in the room to pay attention to the implications of the bill (newest MK Glick and MK Stern did as well), and that is the crux of the issue. The bill will affect those who use the mikvah most, and not the Conservative and Reform conversions it’s purportedly designed to deter. But the Charedi parties that wrote the bill – for whom Torah observance should be of paramount importance – turn a blind eye to the pleading of the women to be heard and considered. Could it be that they simply do not care? Shouldn’t that be unthinkable? Yet when a high ranking charedi official in the the religious council of Jerusalem was told that, because of this bill, women won’t use the mikveh, he shrugged. “So, they won’t use the mikveh.”
This bill is supposedly about preserving Judaism, safeguarding the Torah, and the Jewish people. But it is not; it does none of those things. Rather, the bill is about power and control — about a coalition deal. The fact that it may result in the suffering of religious and traditional women, who by their very actions are preserving Judaism and safeguarding both Torah and the Jewish people, is of no concern. The women’s suffering and discomfort, the dismissal of their needs is simply collateral damage in the Charedi MKs’ service of a larger cause — their own political clout.
Imagine a world without women. No mothers or daughters. No female doctors, MKs, teachers or even real estate agents. No girls swinging on playgrounds or young women going to school.
Open one of the numerous pamphlets or magazines in towns around the world with large haredi communities – from Bnei Brak to Lakewood, New Jersey, from Betar Illit to London – and that is what you will find. Even the magazines created for women, like Mishpacha and Bina, have no women or girls in them.
This phenomenon has also come to the town of Beit Shemesh, where, in addition to many haredim and traditional Israelis, there lives a vibrant, Zionistic immigrant population. Recently a group of such residents, concerned with the increasing radicalization of the town as seen in the women-free pamphlets in certain areas and some “women to the back” bus lines, decided to take action – and found more than they bargained for.
If a man cannot look at a woman and say ‘What a healthy and handsome woman the Almighty has created,’ then I do not know what is happening to us. And I fear that if this continues, we will have to veil our faces.
Speaking at a conference, she said she was “greatly ashamed” that the Shas publication “Day to Day” ran a photograph of the newly elected government with the faces of female ministers blurred out.
Recently, Angela Merkel was removed from the now famous picture of the recent rally in France by an ultra-Orthodox newspaper. In this, she joins the ranks of Hillary Clinton and many Jewish women and girls who have been literally erased from the public eye by elements of the Jewish community who fanaticize the concept of “guarding one’s eyes”
Though the aim of this practice is to be holy and desexualize casual encounters, it instead has the opposite effect, making every interaction between genders a potentially sexual — and thus sinful — one and effectively renders any normal interaction between the sexes impossible.
Though this community is small, it is also the fastest growing and its influence reaches beyond its own neighborhoods.
In this society, men seldom look at women and refrain from reading secular newspapers; strict gender segregation is enforced in schools, synagogues and, really, anywhere that it can be implemented. This has extended to buses and certain bus lines are unofficially (because it is illegal) segregated, with women sitting in the back.
Magazines censor images of women and girls. This relatively new phenomenon extends to magazines that cater to religious, yet far more main stream Jewish communities. Magazines such as Ami, Mishpacha, and Binah all censor women despite having a predominantly female readership.
