R. Arusi will not consider other reasons: religious judges try scared of creating choices within the circumstances related to divorce case and you can agunot lest they take into account increasing the matter regarding bastards around the globe in the event that its decisions is actually incorrect
Certain claim that the fresh new inability from rabbinical process of law to make use of such as for instance steps stems from new reluctance on behalf of rabbinic government to-do one thing that could one way or another push an effective boy to give the brand new get, lest so it make separation and divorce invalid and you may after that wedding adulterous. Someone else claim that this new rabbinic court method is over to look after its advantages and will do-nothing which can infringe up on new inherent male advantage when you look at the halakhah.
R. Ratzon Arusi, who specializes in Jewish law during the Club-Ilan College, enumerates four reasons why you can still find agunot now, and exactly why women are cheated and will waiting many years just before getting the new divorces it request: 1) broadening materialism, deciding to make the standing http://www.datingmentor.org/pl/omg-chat-recenzja/ drawn because of the Rosh and you will Rabbenu Tam (your woman wants a divorcement as this lady has put her vision on the another son) likely to be acknowledged given that reason behind ework regarding the fresh new spiritual otherwise civil judge to help you deteriorate new other front side; 4) difficulty inside the reaching plans as a result of the decree out of Rabbenu Gershom (requiring your ex consent to receive the get); 5) additionally the area played of the battei din and you can spiritual judges. The brand new evaluator makes court choices only with respect to the almost all the poskim, that’s specifically tough towards the dilemma of agunah; this new evaluator remain quick amounts of time to the individual instances, requiring the happy couple to go back towards court once or twice that have renewed objections, thus carrying out stress. Most elementary ‘s the section anywhere between faith and state, where in fact the secularists believe how to transform halakhah will be to get rid of the authority, because the rabbinical effect is among the most great conservatism, it is therefore impractical that they will do anything revolutionary, eg enacting decrees otherwise annulling marriages.
However, only cases that happen to be throughout the courts for a long time is actually known it special wager din, and therefore disregards the new adversity of women in the fresh new 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 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.