|
[In discussion with brethren on a certain list regarding my stating that the Jewish men were “putting away” their wives and not divorcing them (as per Deut 24:1-4), the reply was that what I said was untrue. It was truly amazing how they took up for the Jews. In doing some internet surfing I ran across an article, “Jewish Women in Chains,” that indicates that what I was teaching is still being practiced today.]
Jewish divorce, like any other, can be simple or complicated; a release or a tragedy; straightforward or a swindle. It can set people free to resume or reinvent their lives, or it can embroil individuals and families in a never-ending cycle of abuse. The intent of rabbinic Judaism was to ensure a tolerable disengagement. Regrettably, the current implementation of the halakhic (Jewish legal) system does not meet that minimal standard.
Many individuals, women and men, rabbis and volunteers, have labored to maintain a fair practice. And in some cases it does work.
However, the biblical account of divorce found in Deuteronomy, while accepting marital breakups, establishes a procedure that is at the heart of the problem. "When a man has taken a wife, and married her, and it comes to pass that she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemliness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorce, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife." (Deuteronomy. 24: 1-2) Clearly, the man is the initiator, the actor. And while rabbinic law established that there need be no grounds for divorce other than mutual consent, it enforced the structured order of the verse: the male is the active legal principle. He must initiate, author, and give the document to her. She receives it and only then is free to resume control.
While in most cases Judaism's tolerant acceptance of divorce enables a decent split, in too many situations this male prerogative becomes the means for extortion, vengeance and affliction--certainly not a biblical ideal. Thus, although her consent to the divorce is necessary, the woman is still at the mercy of the man. In the course of the development of Jewish law, many improvements have been incorporated into the system in an attempt to limit the man's unilateral power and prevent the misery. The rabbis were aware of and sensitive to women's vulnerability. But... A Jewish divorce requires a get, a document that a man freely gives to his wife and she must voluntarily accept. Without this document neither partner may remarry according to Jewish law. Today, this affects Conservative, Orthodox and all Israeli Jews. The Reform movement often relies on local civil divorce courts and the Conservative movement has empowered its central court to intervene and act unilaterally to effect a divorce when there are insurmountable problems.
But throughout Israel and in the Orthodox community outside of Israel, the pattern of insisting on the biblical directive has left too many women agunot. An agunah is a woman who cannot remarry because her husband is unable or unwilling to give her a get. The term literally means "anchored" or "tied down" and is first found in verb form in the biblical story of Ruth (1:13). The original talmudic use of the word was limited to cases in which the man had disappeared and literally could not act as a legal instrument in the Jewish divorce proceedings. Recently, popular usage has expanded the term to apply to all cases of women who are unable to remarry because their husbands will not acquiesce and give the divorce document.
The problems for women within this system are obvious. Procedurally dependent on her husband and on a rabbinic court, her future children also become pawns in this tug of war. If a woman without a get gives birth, her newborn children will be considered the product of an adulterous union and hence be categorized as mamzerim, Jews who are not allowed to marry other Jews. There is no remedy. To be sure, both a man and a woman can be found guilty of adultery, but the category depends on the marital status of the woman only. The applicable result is that the woman suffers the most from an incomplete divorce: not only from the possible consequences for future children, but in being chained to a marriage that has for all intents and purposes ended.
The irony is that if the Jewish process of divorce was established to set one free, even to encourage remarriage, the current reality is one in which the process itself has created a group of people who are not free. And the numbers and problems are increasing--but the numerical dimensions of this issue should not become the primary consideration. Our social activism should not become a matter of counting heads. Where there is injustice, we are commanded to pursue justice. I personally know many silenced women suffering the fate of an anchored life. Their stories, not their numbers, are our call to action.
For Jewish society today, for all of us, divorce constitutes a major moral problem. Not because of the increase in numbers or because of the guilt of either party, but because of the inequities of the process and the indifference of the larger community. People no longer married, no longer living together, are still tied to each other. Bound together and abandoned. The credibility, viability, and continuity of Judaism are on the line.
The proliferation of unsettled cases has convinced many individuals and organizations to come forward. There are solutions and vehicles for action. Social awareness and education are the first steps. In the necessarily incomplete list that follows, there are numerous groups and resources available. Some organizations have taken on the task of working with individual cases, others have promoted educational formats. Working within both the secular and Jewish systems, activists have initiated both civil and halakhic remedies.
Regarding the article below, Howard Justice and David Willis have said I misrepresented the writer. Read it carefully and judge.
Mike Willis, an ultra conservative preacher and long time editor of Truth Magazine (now Guardian of Truth), gave the following exegesis of Deut 24:1-4:
“A reading of this passage demonstrates that Moses was trying to legislate in such a way as to aid the woman because of the manner in which man was abusing her. According to what I can understand was happening in the days of Moses, a man would put away his wife without any concern for her future. She would not be free to go out and marry another man and yet she could not live with her husband. This left her in destitute circumstances quite frequently. Hence, what Moses was trying to legislate was something that would aid women who had been put away by their husbands.”
“The Mosaical legislation said that if a man was going to put away his wife, he had to give her a bill of divorcement that showed that she was free from him and had the opportunity to remarry. Hence, it was designed to protect the women from the harsh treatment husbands were giving to them."
Mike Willis Dayton, Ohio Truth Magazine XXIV: 14, pp. 227-230 April 3, 1980.
Reprinted with permission from www.socialaction.com
See also: http://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-get-not-given.htm
|
