Roentgen. Arusi and additionally ignores the newest defect inherent for the kiddushin by kinyan

Roentgen. Arusi cannot consider most other explanations: spiritual evaluator are fearful of creating conclusion within the cases related to divorce case and agunot lest it take into account raising the amount regarding bastards globally if the its conclusion is incorrect

Certain declare that brand new incapacity off rabbinical process of law to use such methods is due to the fresh new reluctance on behalf of rabbinic government accomplish one thing which could one way or another push good kid to provide the new score, lest this make the divorce or separation incorrect and you can after that relationship adulterous. Anybody else claim that the new rabbinic judge method is over to look after the strengths and will do nothing that infringe up on this new inherent men advantage in the halakhah.

R. Ratzon Arusi, just who specializes in Jewish rules from the Pub-Ilan University, enumerates five good reason why there are agunot now, and why women can be exploited that can wait ages before getting new divorces it request: 1) increasing materialism, making the reputation taken by the Rosh and you will Rabbenu Tam (your lady wants a separation and divorce since she has set their eyes with the some other kid) likely to feel acknowledged due to the fact reason for ework of the fresh spiritual or civil legal so you’re able to damage this new opposing top; 4) complications inside the interacting with arrangements as a result of the decree regarding Rabbenu Gershom (demanding the girl accept have the get); 5) and the part starred by battei din and you will spiritual evaluator. Brand new evaluator makes judge decisions merely with respect to the most new poskim, that’s specifically difficult to your dilemma of agunah; the brand new judges stay short amounts of time for the private times, demanding the happy couple to go back to your judge several times which have restored objections, thus performing pressure. Most elementary ‘s the section between religion and you may county, where secularists feel that the way to alter halakhah will be to reduce its power, since the rabbinical response is considered the most great conservatism, therefore it is unrealistic that they can do anything major, for example enacting decrees otherwise annulling marriages.

not, just circumstances which have been on courts for many years is referred to this unique wager din, hence disregards the fresh hardships of one’s women in the brand 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 no strings attached, kimin seni Г¶deymeden sevdiДџini nasД±l gГ¶rГјrsГјn? 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.