R. Arusi cannot refer to other grounds: spiritual judges was afraid of developing conclusion for the circumstances related to separation and divorce and you may agunot lest they take into account improving the matter from bastards international if the the choices is completely wrong
Particular say that the fresh inability out of rabbinical courts to apply such measures comes from the newest reluctance on behalf of rabbinic bodies to accomplish one thing which can in some manner push a beneficial man provide new score, lest this result in the separation and divorce invalid and further matrimony adulterous. Other people declare that brand new rabbinic legal experience out to care for their strengths and certainly will do nothing that may infringe up on the latest inherent men right when you look at the halakhah.
Roentgen. Ratzon Arusi, who specializes in Jewish rules in the Pub-Ilan School, enumerates five reason there are still agunot today, and exactly why women are taken advantage of and may wait years in advance of getting brand new divorces they request: 1) growing materialism, making the reputation removed of the Rosh and you will Rabbenu Tam (that lady wants a separation and divorce just like the she’s lay their sight towards the various other boy) prone to end up being recognized just like the reason for ework regarding the latest spiritual or civil court to help you weaken this new opposing side; 4) difficulty during the interacting with agreements due to the decree regarding Rabbenu Gershom (demanding your ex accept to receive the get); 5) and area starred because of the battei din and you can religious evaluator. New evaluator tend to make courtroom decisions merely according to majority of the latest poskim, that’s particularly hard into problem of agunah; the fresh new evaluator sit quick durations toward private times, demanding the happy couple to go back on the court a few times that have revived objections, ergo performing stress. Most rudimentary ‘s the department ranging from religion and county, in which the secularists believe the best way to alter halakhah will be to cure their power, as the rabbinical reaction is considered the most higher conservatism, therefore it is unlikely that they will do anything significant, including enacting decrees otherwise annulling marriage ceremonies.
not, only instances which have been on process of law for years is actually referred to which unique bet din, hence disregards new adversity of your women in the newest interim
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 Recommended Site 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.