R. Arusi cannot reference most other factors: religious evaluator was afraid of fabricating decisions for the times involving divorce case and agunot lest they take into account raising the count out-of bastards around the world in the event that the behavior was wrong
Some claim that new incapacity out-of rabbinical process of law to make use of such actions comes from the reluctance with respect to rabbinic bodies to complete something which could somehow push a beneficial guy giving the fresh get, lest that it make divorce case incorrect and you can next relationship adulterous. Other people declare that brand new rabbinic legal system is off to maintain its importance and certainly will do-nothing that will infringe on the brand new inherent men privilege in halakhah.
R. Ratzon Arusi, whom focuses on Jewish laws at the Bar-Ilan College, enumerates four good reason why there are agunot now, and why ladies are taken advantage of and may hold off decades ahead of acquiring the new divorces it request: 1) growing materialism, making the position pulled by the Rosh and you can Rabbenu Tam (your girl wants a divorce once the she’s got lay this lady sight to your other man) very likely to getting approved as the cause of ework regarding the latest spiritual otherwise civil legal to help you deteriorate the brand new opposite side; 4) issue from inside the getting preparations as a result of the decree from Rabbenu Gershom (demanding your ex agree to have the rating); 5) therefore the part played because of the battei din and you will religious judges. New judges make court choices merely according to the most of the fresh new poskim, that is especially hard towards dilemma of agunah; the fresh new evaluator remain short durations on individual times, requiring the happy couple to return on the courtroom from time to time which have renewed objections, thus carrying out tension. Simplest is the division anywhere between religion and you can county, the spot where the secularists believe that how to transform halakhah is to try to eliminate their authority, as rabbinical impulse is one of higher conservatism, so it’s unlikely that they’ll do just about anything major, for example enacting decrees or annulling marriages.
However, only times which were regarding process of law for a long time escort babylon Newark try labeled it special wager din, hence disregards brand new challenges of your own women in the new 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.