The following article was written about SIJS's Center for Women in Jewish Law, which received a grant renewal in July 2001 from the Ford Foundation.

Divorce Scenes

(Translated from the Hebrew, Kol Ha'ir Weekly Newspaper, Jerusalem)

If your husband is plagued by boils or simply smells bad, if a mole developed on his nose or if he's a chronic tightwad, you can get out of the marriage. But if he's violent, a drug addict or doesn't support his children, forget about divorce. The Center for Women in Jewish Law seeks ways of liberating women. The rabbinic court is not impressed, but the Center won't give up.

Last week, after long years of deliberations, Rachel (not her real name) received the divorce certificate she had awaited for such a long time. Rachel, a religious woman, married Levi (not his real name), whom she met through a matchmaker. She thought it was his first marriage. No one bothered to tell her that he was married and divorced twice before: Once in Israel and a second time abroad - with a non-Jewish woman.

But that's not what shattered her. Seven years ago, her husband fled the country and left her on her own with their son. Far from his wife, he led a wild lifestyle and lived with other women. Despite all this, he was adamant in his refusal to give her a divorce and actually professed to be an ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) Rabbi to give her the message: "A rabbi's wife is not to sleep with another man."

"Rachel is in her late thirties," says attorney Sharon Shenhav. "The husband did not pay child support and refused to give her a divorce. Ultimately, with the cooperation of local rabbis, who applied much pressure, he was persuaded to do so. The rabbis in Israel knew there was no escaping divorce, but the process dragged on for 6-7 years - an especially long time for a woman in her thirties."

The research team at the Center for Women in Jewish Law is now attempting to find solutions that would have saved Rachel all her suffering. Although the Center is part of the Schechter Institute for Jewish Studies, that belongs to the Masorti (Conservative) Movement, its scholars examine and study Rabbinic sources, hoping to find solutions that also meet the Orthodox standards according to which Rabbinic judges make their decisions.

The research team, comprising attorney Shenhav, Rabbi Monique Ziskind-Goldberg (ordained by the Schechter Institute in 1999) and Rabbi Diana Vila (ordained by Schechter Institute in 2000), considers those whose husbands refuse to divorce them the same as agunot (women unable to remarry according to Halacha because their husbands have disappeared) in every respect. True, their spouses are not missing, but like all agunot, their freedom is denied and they are stuck in a marriage with no way out. According to the research team, rabbinic courts that have an exclusive mandate over divorce cases according to Israeli law, avoid using some of the solutions that Halacha places at their disposal. The judges, they claim, will always prefer following the safe path that everyone else uses and will almost never look beyond it or give a slightly bolder interpretation to the words of the great Poskim (Halachic decision-makers). The result is clear: Women who may be in mortal danger spend years going from hearing to hearing until they suffer total and life-threatening exhaustion.

In contrast to other feminist struggles, the battle waged by women refused divorces has rallied support from all organizations, from Emuna (associated with the National Religious Party) to the Women's Network, perhaps because even older generation women's organizations, that are apprehensive about being labeled "feminist," realize that we cannot go on this way. Before worrying about egalitarian representation of women on Boards of Directors, we have to make sure that women don't become their husbands' hostages.

Shenhav talks about of international conferences on women's rights at which she, as an Israeli, finds common ground with feminist activists from Islamic countries. "They too suffer from similar problems," she explains, "but they are shocked at the situation in Israel. They ask me: 'How is it that you Jewish women, who are so advanced and intelligent, suffer from such a thing?' They can't believe it!"

Prof. Alice Shalvi, Chair of the Women's Network from 1984 until two years ago, is now Chair of the Schechter Institute's Israeli Board. "I started working with Pnina Peli on agunot and women refused divorces back in the 1970s. I am very sad to say that very little has changed since then," she says. "When we set up the Women's Network in 1984, I went from one place to another throughout Israel to find out what distresses and disturbs women. The issue of women's status in rabbinic courts arose again and again. I was astounded to learn how common it was. If the victims themselves did not complain, their sisters, daughters, mothers or friends did. Nearly everyone knows some woman who's been refused a divorce."

The Women's Network decided to address the issue, presenting its claims to then Chief Rabbis Avraham Shapira and Mordechai Eliyahu. The rabbis asked for proof and Network representatives returned with several sample cases. The rabbis then dodged the issue, saying: "Well, all right, there may be a problem here and there." "Eventually, in a demonstration, we proved that there were more than two cases," says Shalvi, "but they said, 'We'll deal with each case separately' and we understood that it would take years."

The Network's next step was the establishment of two committees - one Halachic (which Shenhav chaired) and one Legal. After a year of discussions, they again appealed to the Chief Rabbis - Lau and Bakshi-Doron - proposing five possible solutions to alleviate the situation of agunot. R. Lau said that their proposals offered nothing new, to which Shalvi responded that they had no intention of innovating but only wanted rabbinic courts to apply solutions already existing in Halacha.

This did not help either. The parties found themselves in a vicious circle: Once a year, the women demonstrate and then meet with the Chief Rabbis and the Director of the Rabbinic Courts, Eliyahu Ben-Dahan. They complain, they listen, but nothing happens. According to Shalvi, Ben-Dahan is a good person who tries to help: "He understands the problem, encourages us, accompanies us when we meet with rabbis and puts in a good word, but he is not all-powerful and he does not want to jeopardize his own position." In the meantime, a coalition of women's organizations (called ICAR),formed to deal with agunot, but it too has achieved no breakthroughs.

The Schechter Institute's Center for Women in Jewish Law was established for precisely this purpose - to shake up the rabbinic court establishment and introduce fresh lines of thinking into the halls of justice. The initiative originated with Shenhav, who served as legal adviser to Naamat for many years and handled numerous divorce refusal cases. Three years ago, Shenhav retired from Naamat and contacted Shalvi, then Rector of the Schechter Institute, offering to set up a work team that would tackle difficult divorce refusal cases Jewish sources to determine whether some kind of Halachic solution could be found to free such women. The Ford Foundation provided the funding and the research center started work.

Schechter Institute officials hoped that the combination of (female) researchers, women with rabbinic ordination, guided by Prof. David Golinkin, President and Rector of the Schechter Institute, and an attorney (Shenhav) would form an efficient work group. The time has come, they said, for women to apply the vast Halachic knowledge they accumulated over the past few decades. Instead of relying on the good will and pity of men, they should take the initiative and offer their own solutions.

This is what happened in the case of Sara (not her real name). In the summer of 1969, when she and her family came to Israel from Iran, she was only 14. A few months after that, Reuven (not his real name), 23, who had been courting her even back in Isfahan, arrived in the country and asked Sara's parents for her hand in marriage. They declined, as she was still young and wanted to continue studying. Reuven did not give up. He appealed to her parents again, this time claiming he had had sexual relations with their daughter and if they do not allow him to marry her, he would tell everyone about it, even in Iran. "Thirty years ago, that meant that no one would go near her after such a rumor," explains Shenhav. Her parents didn't ask her a thing. Had they bothered to check it out, they would have found that their daughter was a virgin. In 1970, the couple married, when the bride was only 15. The Israel Marriage Registry lists her age at marriage as 17, but Shenhav and Vila have a copy of Sara's birth certificate from Iran, according to which she was born in 1955.

Reuven promised his wife that they would continue to live in Israel and that she could continue studying, but a month after the wedding, the couple traveled to Iran, ostensibly to handle transfer of Reuven's business to Israel. They wound up staying for nine years, returning to Israel with two children in 1979. During their stay in Iran, Reuven revealed himself to be a violent man. He beat and cursed Sara, threatened to kill her and even locked her up in the house without food when she was pregnant. In 1974, she gathered enough courage to complain to the local police, who told her she was insane and sent her home.

One month after returning to Israel, Reuven went back to Iran, this time alone. He remained there another eight years, writing to his wife that he had converted to Islam and married a Muslim woman and that he would never give her (Sara) a divorce. After five years alone, supporting herself and her two children, Sara appealed to the rabbinic court, seeking child support. The court could not find her husband in Khomeini's Iran, even with the assistance of the Chief Rabbi of France, who was then mediating between rabbinic courts in Israel and the Iranian Jewish community.

In 1986, Reuven came to Israel on a forged passport. The rabbinic court obtained an order to prevent him from leaving the country and another to keep him away from Sara's home and workplace, but he still refused to divorce her, unless she paid him $80,000. The harassment continued for eight years. Eventually, in 1996, when Sara was 42, she finally received the divorce she wanted, by paying her husband $16,000. Shenhav sums up the situation by saying that "Sara essentially became a widow while her husband was still alive."

"Husbands know they have the upper hand," says Rabbi Villa, "so they can apply extortion. If he's not willing to grant a divorce, he can demand whatever he likes. The man has the power and if he desires, he can abuse it." Shenhav adds: "Every Jewish husband knows it. Even if he's a drunk, narcotics addict or illiterate, if he says 'no,' his wife is simply stuck."

Shenhav explains that many divorce refusal cases are the result of financial extortion. The sum stipulated in the marriage contract (Ketubah) that inflated amount that the rabbi reads so ceremoniously under the wedding canopy, lacks all significance. It represents a one-time payment that the man is supposed to remit to the woman in the event of divorce. In previous centuries, when all property, including the wife herself, belonged to the man, the marriage contract provided financial security for the divorcee who would otherwise be penniless. But for the past 30 years, Israel has had a law on the books declaring that a woman is entitled to half the marital property. If she gets 50%, she does not need the marriage contract sum. Effectively, one of the first stages in requesting divorce is vitiation of the marriage contract payment. The man indeed promised to pay a few million, in the presence of aunts, uncles and two witnesses, but if the woman wants her freedom, that's the first thing she's going to have to give up.

Shenhav reports that recently, she witnessed several cases in which rabbinic judges threatened the obstinate husband that if he does not grant the divorce, he'll have to remit the marriage contract payment. But there have not been many such cases. Shenhav recalls: "Once, one of the rabbis asked me: 'What's the problem? If the woman pays for the wedding, why shouldn't she pay for the divorce?' That's the norm. A woman who wants to get divorced has to pay for her freedom." Villa: "Halacha was always non-egalitarian, but in the past it was less disturbing, because it paralleled women's status in other aspects of life. Today, the situation is different."

After gathering factual information from Sara's file, the researchers consulted the sources - Mishna, Talmud and the early and later commentators - and came up with two possible solutions. Rabbi Monique Ziskind-Goldberg wrote up the findings that were published in the Center's periodical, Jewish Law Watch, devoted to solving the problems of agunot.

The first such solution was to declare the marriage of the two as coerced. According to the woman's account, her parents agreed to the wedding only under duress. If the marriage was coerced, explains Villa, it is invalid and the woman does not require a divorce. Tractate Kidushin of the Babylonian Talmud stipulates that a woman may only be betrothed "of her own mind," that is, if she is aware of it and agrees to it and is not subject to duress. Elsewhere, the Talmudic Sages debate whether one may compare betrothal to an ordinary purchase/sale contract. One opinion claims that in betrothal, as in real estate transactions, for example, a certain sum of money transfers ownership. Insofar as the contract is concerned, as in all contracts, the deal is completed and sealed once the money passes from hand to hand. On the other hand, most Halachic decision-makers, including Maimonides, claim that "a woman betrothed against her will is not betrothed."

Villa: "No, because if a marriage is annulled, the children cannot be mamzerim. The definition of a mamzer is a child born to a married woman sired by a man other than her husband, whereas in the case of annulment it is as if she were never married. At worst, people will call her a whore because she had children out of wedlock, but the children will not be mamzerim."

Another way of releasing Sara from her marriage is by declaring the betrothal a "mistaken transaction." This concept refers to cases in which the woman became aware of a blemish or flaw in her husband that she did not know about before the wedding. In general, the concept is applied when the new husband is found to be impotent. In such a case, as in coerced marriage, there is no need for a divorce, as the betrothal was an error. Ziskind-Goldberg writes that as Reuven married a minor, thereby violating the law, he is a criminal. Sara, in contrast, did not know that she was violating the law and that her husband is a criminal. Had she known, explains Ziskind-Goldberg, she would not have agreed to marry him. Another mistaken transaction, according to the researchers, concerns his tendency towards violence. It is reasonable to assume that Reuven was violent even before they got married, hence the marriage is an erroneous transaction.

Another case handled by the Center is the story of Rivka and Shimon (not their real names). Rivka, a new immigrant from the Georgian Republic with an advanced degree in chemistry, came to a town in southern Israel and started teaching at the local school. There she met Shimon, who worked in a garage. The two were married in 1978. Rivka was aware that Shimon's brothers were narcotics addicts and involved in criminal affairs, but Shimon was different - kind, supportive and polite. She did not know about the long rap sheet he had from age 11 up to a few months before the wedding, including assault, theft, disturbing the peace and committing an immoral act with a minor.

Up to 1980, everything was fine. Shimon earned a living and Rivka brought up the children. But then, Shimon started working as a drug courier and soon became an addict himself. The idyll was over. Shimon stopped working and domestic violence increased. If Rivka did not agree to pay for his next fix, she'd be beaten and locked out of the house. In 1986, unable to stand it any longer, she filed a complaint with the police and Shimon was imprisoned for six months. When he was released, he applied for rehabilitation, but within a short time went back to drug use. When Rivka told him she wanted to leave home, he locked her in a room with her three children, turned on the gas and left the house. Miraculously, they were rescued and soon escaped to a battered women's shelter. Later, they moved in with Rivka's mother. Shimon promised to rehabilitate himself, but as the story goes, every attempt ended in another round of beatings. He was sentenced to another six months in prison.

In 1988, Rivka applied to the National Insurance Institute for child support and at the same time opened a file with the rabbinic court in Ashkelon. The rabbinic judges suggested that the couple work on reconciliation a bit - a concept that they have turned into a torture rack. After one of the hearings, Shimon attacked Rivka right there in the courthouse and fractured her nose. The police were summoned and Shimon was locked up again. "Whenever he declares he loves her," Villa explains "the judges declare a reconciliation. True, he broke her nose, but he loves her." Shenhav: "This reconciliation is so cynical. The rabbis always talk about saving a marriage. They say that when a couple divorces there are tears upon the altar. He beats her again and again but now remembers that he loves her. Oh, come on!"

In April 1992, Shimon agreed to give his wife a divorce, but only on condition that he retains the right to continue living in their home and that Rivka recommends canceling the National Insurance debt and promises she will never ask him for child support. The rabbinic court also asked the Prison Service to reduce Shimon's term, as consent to the divorce was "a great sacrifice for him."

This time, the researchers concluded that in such a case, the rabbinic court had the right to force Shimon to grant a divorce. In Diaspora Jewish communities, it is virtually impossible to force a divorce, as the rabbinic judges have no legal power, but in Israel they can apply many sanctions against a recalcitrant husband. These need not include imprisonment. People involved with the issue revealed that confiscating a passport or driver's license and closing a bank or credit card account are no less effective means, as is revocation of one's professional license. Vila and Shenhav say they've heard of two cases in which doctors refused to give their wives divorces until a veiled threat that their medical licenses would be revoked helped expedite the process.

The problem of compelled divorce is the need to walk a thin line. According to Halacha, a divorce granted under duress is invalid. If so, how is a forced divorce possible? Halachic sources list certain conditions that permit compelled divorce. The Mishna in Tractate Ketubot mentions four such characteristics applicable to the husband: (a) boils; (b) a mole on his nose (the Gemara explains it as bad breath); (c) one who uses dog feces to soften leather; (d) coppersmiths and tanners (other occupations in which one smells bad after a day's work). The Talmud discusses two other options for a compelled divorce: A man who does not support his household and one who does not have sexual relations with his wife, but the question remained open.

One shocking issue inquires whether one may force a physically violent man to grant a divorce. Ostensibly, the answer is simple: If the Mishna says one may exact a divorce from a man who smells bad, then certainly one who beats . But Halachic logic is not always that simple. Of course, there is no shortage of Halachic decision-makers who agree: The Tashbetz, the great fifteenth-century North African authority, wrote that suffering and hunger constitute justifiable reasons for compelling a divorce, adding that if it were their daughters who were suffering, other Rabbis would not hesitate to concur. But the technical problem still remains: Domestic violence does not appear in the original list in Tractate Ketubot and is therefore not universally accepted as a valid reason for forcing a divorce. "The problem is that today's rabbis lack Halachic courage," claims Shenhav. "Eight hundred years ago, it was Maimonides who declared that if a woman says to her husband 'I'm sick of you,' that's enough reason to compel a divorce. But where is today's Maimonides? All the judges are religious males, some even ultra-Orthodox. They are not familiar with the lives of modern women and it is difficult for them to understand a battered woman's suffering."

Villa: "There is a Talmudic expression that a woman prefers being with any man to being alone. Much of the conservative interpretation is based on this conception. People consider it a woman's nature to prefer being married even to someone who is not good for her."

The periodical Jewish Law Watch was sent to rabbinic judges, rabbis and other interested parties in Israel and overseas. Rabbi Eliyahu Ben-Dahan, Head of the Rabbinic Courts, who also received a copy, showed it to Rabbi A.Z. Sheinfeld, who was none too enthusiastic. Not only are outsiders intervening and butting into the judges' work, but what's even worse, they're women, and Conservative, he said.

Initially, when the Schechter Institute received Ben-Dahan and Sheinfeld's response, they thought that a breakthrough had occurred. On the official stationery of the Rabbinic Courts, Ben-Dahan wrote: "To: Rabbi Monique Z. Goldberg." Institute personnel were thrilled: "There! After years of ignoring us, a pioneer of the Orthodox establishment recognizes Conservative rabbinic ordination - and of a woman, no less!" But after reading the contents of the letter, they admit that Ben-Dahan may not have noticed or may have erroneously thought that Monique is a man's name.

Sheinfeld, in contrast, was not sparing in his outright condemnation of the researchers, summing up matters as follows: "All the 'research' we have before us constitutes nothing but evil, hypocrisy and ignorance: Evil for its distortion of facts, hypocrisy in the reasons it cites and ignorance of Halacha." The Center for Women in Jewish Law answered each of the claims in the ten pages of Sheinfeld's slander and malevolence, backed up by detailed quotations from Halachic sources. This time, Ben-Dahan himself replied, arguing here and there but maintaining a softer tone: "Many of the claims put forth today had never been raised in rabbinic courts previously," he wrote towards the end of his letter. "As such, criticism of today's rabbinic courts is without foundation. It is indeed a pity that these claims were not brought before the courts at the time so that we could examine them and rule accordingly."

At the Schechter Institute, no one hastened to open the champagne. Ben-Dahan's letter is still far from revolutionary, but it's a start, say the researchers, the start of dialogue. After decades of wearying struggles, they learned the hard way that reform is a slow and cautious process. If you want to get something done, you have to play by the rules of the Orthodox establishment for the time being. "As an organization, we are seeking legitimacy for the Conservative and Reform Movements, but we're dealing with a given situation and have no choice other than using their tools," says Shalvi. As the expression goes, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."