Roentgen. Arusi and additionally ignores the fresh problem intrinsic into the kiddushin by kinyan

Roentgen. Arusi and additionally ignores the fresh problem intrinsic into the kiddushin by kinyan

R. Arusi cannot reference almost every other factors: spiritual judges was fearful of creating behavior inside the instances connected with divorce and you will agunot lest they make up raising the amount out-of bastards internationally if the its choices was completely wrong

Specific point out that the newest incapacity off rabbinical courts to use like strategies is due to the newest resistance on the behalf of rabbinic authorities to do things which could somehow force an excellent boy supply the latest get, lest this improve separation incorrect and you will further wedding adulterous. Anybody else declare that this new rabbinic legal method is out to take care of its characteristics and certainly will do nothing that will infringe abreast of the fresh intrinsic male right into the halakhah.

Roentgen. Ratzon Arusi, just who focuses primarily on Jewish law during the Pub-Ilan University, enumerates four reason there are still agunot today, and just why women can be taken advantage of and may even waiting decades before getting the newest divorces they consult: 1) expanding materialism, putting some position taken by Rosh and you can Rabbenu Tam (that the lady wants a separation and divorce as she has lay the woman attention into various other guy) very likely to feel recognized due to the fact reason for ework away from the fresh new religious or municipal legal so you’re able to deteriorate brand new face-to-face front; 4) complications inside getting together with agreements because of the decree out of Rabbenu Gershom (requiring your ex agree to receive the score); 5) and region played from the battei din and spiritual evaluator. The fresh judges tend to make courtroom behavior simply according to the almost all this new poskim, that is particularly difficult to your dilemma of agunah; the fresh new judges remain short durations on private cases, demanding the happy couple to go back to your court from time to time that have restored objections, hence doing tension. Most elementary ‘s the office between faith and you will state, where the secularists think how to alter halakhah should be to dump their power, since the rabbinical impulse is among the most high conservatism, it is therefore unlikely that they can do anything significant, such as for example enacting decrees or annulling marriage ceremonies.

not, only circumstances which have been from the courts for many years is actually known that it special bet din, and this disregards the adversity of your women in the fresh 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.