Particular declare that the fresh new inability out-of rabbinical process of law to use such as measures comes from the fresh resistance for rabbinic bodies doing some thing which could in some manner push an effective kid to provide the brand new rating, lest which result in the divorce or separation incorrect and you can after that marriage adulterous. Others point out that the fresh new rabbinic courtroom method is off to manage its characteristics and will do nothing that infringe upon the inherent men right in the halakhah.
R. Ratzon Arusi, just who focuses on Jewish legislation during the Club-Ilan College, enumerates five good reason why you may still find agunot today, and why ladies are exploited that will wait decades in advance of getting the latest divorces they demand: 1) broadening materialism, deciding to make the updates drawn by the Rosh and you will Rabbenu Tam (that the girl wants a divorcement because she’s got place the woman attention into other man) expected to end up being recognized as the cause of ework of brand new spiritual or municipal judge to deteriorate brand new reverse front; 4) complications for the interacting with plans as a result of the decree away from Rabbenu Gershom (requiring the woman’s agree to receive the score); 5) plus the region played of the battei din and you may religious evaluator. The new judges make courtroom conclusion only according to majority of new poskim, that is particularly difficult to the issue of agunah; the newest judges remain short amounts of time to the individual cases, requiring the couple to return for the courtroom once or twice which have renewed arguments, therefore carrying out pressure. Most rudimentary ‘s the section between faith and you will condition, where in fact the secularists think how to transform halakhah will be to get rid of the authority, given that rabbinical effect is one of great conservatism, it is therefore unrealistic that they’ll do just about anything revolutionary, including enacting decrees otherwise annulling marriage ceremonies.
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 Philadelphia PA eros escort 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.