700,000 NIS: Latest Award to Woman Whose Husband Refused to Give Her A Get

On December 14, 2008, Judge Tova Sivan of the Tel Aviv Family Court accepted our petition for damages (700,000 NIS) in compensation for the pain and suffering that our client endured because her husband refused to give her a get. Justice Sivan rendered this decision despite the fact that the rabbinic court had not ordered the husband to divorce his wife. In fact, the rabbinic court had denied her request for such an order.



The woman was married in 1997. After only 3 months (!) of marriage, she ran away from her husband who had subjected her to severe physical violence. For the past 11 years (!), the parties have been in litigation in the rabbinic courts. Despite the long period of separation, and the harsh allegations that the wife has made against the husband, the rabbinic court did not order the husband to give a get, but has merely maintained that it was his "moral obligation" to do so (a mitvah).

CWJ argued before the Family Court that withholding the get is tantamount to the intentional infliction of emotional distress; prevents a woman from going forward with her life in a reasonable and orderly manner; is an unconscionable use of religious power; and is a severe infringement on our client's liberty.

The Hon. Tova Sivan rejected the defendant's defense that he should not be obligated to pay damages so long as there is no rabbinic order that he must give the get; and that should such damages be awarded, they would serve as the basis for invalidating the get under Jewish law (the invalid forced divorce-- get meuseh) . She held that the wife's damage claim is a tort irrespective of any rabbinic order, and without regard to the question of the 'forced divorce.'

This is the first time that the Family Court has awarded damages for get recalcitrance to a woman whose petition to order her husband to give her a get was denied. This decision is yet another example of how the legal discourse in the Israeli courts is changing; and is a clear statement from our civil courts that get refusal is a tortious act that Israeli society will not tolerate.

The great and equivocal vanishing trick of Israeli women

Below is an op-ed piece that I wrote in today's Jerusalem Post. Among other things, I describe how the Jerusalem Labor Court (November 28, 2008) accepted CWJ's motion to dismiss a discriminatory employment tender for "legal assistants" to rabbinic judges.


The Labor Court's decision is an important milestone in CWJ's relentless insistence that the rights of women, as well as their presence, be considered, recognized, and affirmed in Israeli rabbinic courts. Unfortunately, as described below, the various arms of the Israeli state are not consistant in their protection of the rights of women.


The great and equivocal vanishing trick of Israeli women
Dec. 9, 2008Susan Weiss , THE JERUSALEM POST


Last August my husband and I spent 10 days in Istanbul. For the weekend, we took a ferry to the island of Büyükada, the Turkish equivalent of Martha's Vineyard. There tourists of all persuasions stand in line for the horse-and-buggy ride up to the top of the island and rub shoulders in the town square to take family pictures.


Time and again, we saw Muslim men wearing jeans, sneakers and baseball caps, mugging for the camera with their multiple wives clad in identical, formless chadors with only their eyes peeping through the endless folds of cloth. How, we wondered, could they possibly tell one wife apart from the next when they got home? The women were one big, black, indistinguishable, polyester blur - veiled and virtually invisible.


The great vanishing trick of Muslim women behind the weight of the chador is a bit heavy-handed and obvious. We in Israel are much more subtle. We eliminate our women with élan, delicacy - and equivocation.


For example: The High Court of Justice has held that it is okay for state-subsidized buses to operate lines that require women to sit in the back of the bus - out of sight's way - to accommodate the "religious sensibilities" of the haredi population. Thus the State of Israel allows its women to vanish in sophisticated deference to multiculturalism.


For example: State laws and taxpayer money support rabbinic courts that do not allow women to sit on the bench. Taking express reservation to article 7(b) of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Israel defends its purge of women judges from the rabbinic courts as follows: "[T]he appointment of women to serve as judges of religious courts is prohibited by the laws of any of the religious communities in Israel." Thus the State of Israel allows its women to vanish in the name of religious laws.


For example: Aside from being precluded from acting as rabbinic judges, women have virtually disappeared from inside the rabbinic courts. There's only one female court reporter in all of the rabbinic courts; there are no women bailiffs. And until recently, there were no women clerks at all in Petah Tikva. The secretary of the Petah Tikva rabbinic court is quoted as saying: "It has been our custom in Petah Tikva that the clerks are all men, and we should not break down that long-held barrier to employ a woman in any position in our rabbinic court." Thus the State of Israel allows its women to vanish by custom.


THOUGH THE state has become rather adept at its erudite elimination of women, it does not engage in its great magic act of the disappearing Israeli woman without equivocation.


Thus when Egged recently refused to run bus ads with the pictures of women who were candidates for Jerusalem city council citing "religious sensibilities," the High Court did not think this was okay. It accepted the Reform Movement's motion to force the publication of those ads. And when the executive office of the rabbinic courts and the Civil Service Commission published tenders for the position of legal advisers to rabbinic judges in 2007, and again in 2008, effectively marking the position with an asterisk that gave preference to those applicants who had qualified as rabbinic judges (men), the Jerusalem Labor Court balked at the affront.


In 2007, the Center for Women's Justice appealed to the court to withdraw the tenders as discriminatory and the rabbinic courts and the Civil Service Commission immediately capitulated, agreeing to rewrite them. Last month, when the rewritten, new version of the tenders fell short, Judge Yaffa Stein heard the case and accepted CWJ's second petition, stating: "Giving preference to those who are qualified to be rabbinic judges is discriminatory and unreasonable given the fact that women can't achieve this preference, no matter how talented they may be."


If it's so clear to us modern-Westernized-Israeli world travelers that the chador chokes and obliterates Muslim women, it's time that we modern-Westernized-Israeli world travelers, as well as our state courts and institutions, observe and eliminate - without equivocation - our more sophisticated versions of the same.

Olmert sells his soul

for another day at the helm, once again. This time, at the cost of women, leaving democracy and religion at loggerheads, instead of trying to resolve between them.

For the past few years, ICAR (The International Coalition for Agunah Rights, made up of over 25 organizations) has been working to change the Marital Property (Balancing of Resources) Law of 1974. Women, and other sane people, have been trying to change this law from its inception. The law links the division of marital property to the get.

§ 5 of the Law states (my paraphrase): “The court will balance the resources of a marriage (read: divide up the marital property) at the time of the dissolution of the marriage (read: the get) .” This means that Israeli women can be “held up” both for the get, as well as for marital property, thus facilitating extortion in exchange for the get-- a sad but well known phenomenon. ICAR has proposed an amendment to the law that would allow for the division of marital property prior to the get: when the parties are living apart, for example.

(Almost) everyone agrees that this is a good idea-- Why facilitate extortion? Everyone, except for Shas. They too think that the suggested amendment to the law would cut down, if not eliminate, extortion. But Shas thinks -- hold on to your hats -- that the Bet Din needs tools of extortion in order to facilitate the get. So the existing law is good, reasons Shas, because it facilitates the extortion that is essential to divorce resolution!!! (So help me, it’s true).

ICAR, with the hard help of Robyn Shames (ICAR’s Executive Director), Batsheva Sherman-Shani (the head of ICAR’s legal department) and Marc Luria (a volunteer lobbyist-businessman) (among others) indeed succeeded in getting a majority of voting Knesset members to agree that Shas’ claim is nonsense. And they managed to get the proposed amendment passed through 2 readings. Usually the 3rd reading is a mere formality, and the bill gets passed. Unless the minority opposed to the bill somehow manages to call for a “Vote of Non-Confidence in the Government” that, when supported by the Prime Minister( !?) gets the vote on the bill pushed off for a week. Shas and Olmert (pictured) made a secret deal -- in direct opposition to the majority of the Knesset members, and in direct opposition to the position taken by Olmert’s Kadimah party—that Olmert would agree to push off the vote for a week. And a week, in this particular instance, means indefinitely. The Knesset goes on recess next week; and who knows what the Government is going to look like when it gets back to work. MK Menahem BenSasson, the head of the Law and Constitution Committee, is furious. He worked hard to get this passed. So did we all.

But Olmert, once again, has proved that no price is too dear for another day at the helm of the Government. And Shas, once again, has proved that no price is too dear to protect its constituents at the helm of the rabbinic courts.

Knock Out: Man Ordered to Pay 550,000 NIS in Damages for Refusing to Give a Get

July 21, 2008: Judge Benzion Greenberger of the Jerusalem Family Court awarded damages in the amount of 550,000 NIS against a man who refused to give his wife a get, without such award being contingent upon a rabbinic court ruling of any sort. This decision is the first of its kind. Prior to this decision, the family court had held that damages for get refusal were only payable subsequent to a rabbinic court order that a husband must give his wife a get (Judge HaCohen, 2004. Read his decision, in English). Such rabbinic court "orders" are rare and hard to come by.

This new decision celebrates and protects the autonomy and dignity of Jewish women. It is, in my opinion, an unequivocal statement that Israeli family courts will award damages for the harm that results when a man misuses the prerogatives given to him under religious law -- even when that law is the official law of the State of Israel. CWJ represented the woman.

Read Judge Greenberger's 2008 decision in Hebrew. English translation to follow.

March 11, 2008: Supreme Rabbinic Court Slams Tort Cases

This case was decided a while ago, but I thought it was important to fill you in about it:

On March 11th, 2008, the Supreme Rabbinic Court issued a 26 page decision (all obiter dictum, the wife got a valid get after she sued for damages !!!!) in which it held that filing a tort claim against recalcitrant husbands invalidates the future, desired, and not yet given get. The bet din thinks women have to choose-- damages or get. They can't have both! Here is a choice excerpt from the bet din decision:


"All petitions filed outside the rabbinic court – like petitions to civil courts for damages — that relate to get refusal, whose practical consequence is to accelerate the delivery of the get, is an interference with the laws of the Torah regarding divorce, and effectively precludes the possibility of the execution of a [kosher] get…

Attorneys who deal in family law should be advised to weigh carefully their recommendations to clients to file damage claims in the family court for get-refusal. Such recommendations are tantamount to malpractice, and I doubt that attorneys could avoid such claims [of malpractice], even it if they were to sign their clients on waivers to that affect. It can be assumed that clients are not aware, and cannot possibly foresee, what serious consequences and delays can occur in the delivery of the get , even after the husband has agreed to give the get, if the husband's agreement [to give the get] was given subsequent to a petition for damages for get-refusal (J. Algrabli)."

CWJ's informal response:

1- Women do not have a choice about getting a get . Only men have that choice. Women are totally dependent on their husbands for a get, and can wait a lifetime till they are granted one. A lifetime is too long.

2- If a man intentionally abuses his religious right to withhold a get from his wife, he causes her a civil wrong. He is intentionally inflicting emotional distress. He is infringing on his wife's life, liberties, rights, and freedoms. That's why wives have the right to sue recalcitrant husbands for damages.

3- We think a woman is entitled to both a get and to damages if her husband does not give her a get within a reasonable time. 2 years is more than enough waiting time!!!.

4- CWJ will continue to file tort cases for our clients. Before the get and after the get. One has nothing to do with the other. If a client comes to our office who has not gotten a get although she is begging for one for years (our average case is 8 years), or if she has received a get only after many years of loneliness and isolation, we would be negligent if we did not file a tort case for her. She has been harmed and should be compensated for that harm..

5- Notwithstanding the above case and its broad -sweeping generalization, most rabbinic courts in Israel have been very constructive and practical in response to our specific tort cases and have found ways to execute halakhically valid gitten to our clients.We are sure they will continue to respond to the individual cases that come before them. As they did in the above case.

Cause of Action against Family of Get Recalcitrant Husband

Recently we received an important interim decision in one of our tort cases.

A few months ago, we at the Center for Women's Justice sued a mother, 2 brothers, and a sister, as well as a husband, for damages because of get refusal. The husband has gone "underground" for the past 3 1/2 years and his family, in addition to "helping" the husband's case in various ways, refuses to tell us where the husband is. The family claims that they do not know. We don't believe them.

On July 3, 2008, the Hon. Nili Maymon of the Jerusalem Family Court (pictured) confirmed that Israel tort law allows for a cause of action against the family for aiding and abetting get refusal even if there is no formal rabbinic court "order" against the husband to deliver a get. Read her decision (in Hebrew) (in English).

On July 8, 2008, we had a hearing on the merits. Will keep you informed.

Cancelled Conversions: Update

Copy of Supreme Rabbinic Court Decision: Here's the original 49 page decision in which the Rabbinic Court, headed by Rabbi Sherman (pictured), held that it's possible to question the status of a convert 15 years after she converted in Rav Druckman's Bet Din.

Letter from MK Menahem Ben-Sassoon to Prof. Daniel Friedman, Minister of Justice: On June 12, 2008, MK Ben Sassoon asked Prof. Friedman to adopt the recommendations of Ombudsman Tova Strasbourg-Cohen that Rabbi Sherman step down from the bench. Read the letter.

Interim Order: On Thursday, June 6, 2008, at 6pm, the Hon. J. Edmund Levi issued an interim order against the rabbinic courts. The order directs the courts to refrain from blacklisting our clients. The purpose of the order is to ensure that our clients’ status as Jews remains in tact. The interim order will stand unless modified by the Supreme Court.

Judge Levi gave the respondents 30 days to respond to the general petition, as well as to the order.

Copy of Initial Petition: Attached is a copy of the initial petition that we filed with the High Court of Justice against the Supreme Rabbinic Court's decision cancelling conversions.

CWJ and the Cancelled Conversions

Why is the Center for Women's Justice representing the woman whose conversion was revoked? (“The Druckman Conversion Case”)

A few words of background:

In May, 2008, the Israeli Supreme Rabbinic Court issued a decision in which it did the following:

• Effectively repealed the conversion of a woman who had been Jewish for 15 years (!)
• Invalidated all conversions done by Rabbi Haim Druckman since 1999.
• Ordered marriage registrars to refrain from registering converts who do not appear to be Torah-Observant (no matter who presided over the conversion).

First, an explanation of why the Center for Women's Justice has taken on the case. Second, an outline of our petition to Israel's Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice.

I. What’s the connection between Repealed Conversions and Agunot?

The conversion issue often arises ancillary to a divorce: Rabbinic Courts have jurisdiction over the question of "Who is a Convert?" when the convert applies for a marriage license; or in the case of divorce. If the convert is not considered Jewish, the registrar will not allow her to marry; and the rabbinic court will not conduct the get ceremony.

This is not the first time CWJ has represented a woman whose conversion had been questioned. In the first case, we represented a woman who sued for a get. As a "defense," her husband filed a complaint with the conversion court, claiming that his wife was not a Torah Observant Jew because she had participated in a New Year's Eve party. The husband thought his wife should both pay for her get, and be ousted from the Jewish people. Our client in fact paid for the get, and is divorced. At the same time, the conversion court held that our client was a “questionable” Jew (safeq yehudiyah) (!). Her case is on appeal.

In CWJ's current case, our client also wanted a divorce. But in contrast to the first case, the couple had reached an amicable settlement. They arrived at the Ashdod rabbinic court for the express and solitary purpose of completing the ritual of the get. Rabbi Atia, the judge in charge of the get procedure, noticed that our client was a convert and, at his own initiative, started asking her questions: Did she turn on lights on the Sabbath? Did she observe the laws of family purity? When he was not satisfied with her answers, Rabbi Atia held that she, like our other client, was a “questionable Jew” (and so were her 3 children and husband) and refused to issue the divorce certificate to the couple.

Women are often targeted in conversion cases. CWJ’s express goal is to protect the interests of women in the Israeli rabbinic courts. Since Jewish lineage is matrilineal, the rabbis scrutinize women converts more carefully than male converts. If a man is not really Jewish and he lives with a Jewish woman, their children are still Jewish.

This case has enabled us to highlight the abuses of the Rabbinic Courts.The rabbinic courts of the State of Israel do not respect precedents; reject the notion of the finality of judgment; do not understand the laws of evidence; and ignore the concept of procedural due process. These sad truths are devastating for our clients and very hard for us to demonstrate, mostly because our clients would rather obtain their get, than fight principle. In this case, the abuses of the rabbinic courts are blatant, easily pinpointed, all too monumental in proportion to ignore, and leave us no choice but to respond.

No respect for precedents. Professionals who work in the rabbinic court are never sure of the grounds for divorce in Israel. Violence? A husband's infidelity? The rules change from court to court. Similarly, in this case, it is unclear what the grounds are, if any, for a conversion to be repealed. Is Rabbi Druckman's conversion court subject to the rulings of the rabbinic court, or vice versa?

No regard for the laws of evidence. Assuming one can articulate the grounds for divorce, how does a legal professional prove violence, or infidelity? The rabbinic courts have no clear rules of evidence. Similarly, in this case, the court held that Rabbi Druckman was a "fraud and a cheat" on the basis of letters sent by third parties to the rabbinic courts complaining about Rabbi Druckman (hearsay). They did not even bother to call the third-parties into court to testify.

No notion of finality of judgment. CWJ divorce clients never know when they can expect a final judgment in their divorce cases--- in a year? 10 years? A lifetime? Similarly, this case proves that a convert can never know how long her conversion will last. Until she gets divorced? Until she decides to wear a pair of pants? Until her son applies to marry an Israeli Jew? Her conversion is subject to relentless review.

No concept of procedural due process. On the basis of rumors and allegations raised in the midst of acrimonious divorce proceedings, the rabbinic courts often put alleged lovers and unborn children onto [black]lists that prevent them marrying. The rabbis raise issues that are not before them. Similarly in the case at hand, the rabbis "tried" Rabbi Druckman without him being present, in a case over which they have no jurisdiction. Similarly, the rabbis raised the issue of the validity of a conversion of our client on their own accord, without being asked by the parties to do so.

II. What are the key arguments of CWJ's petition to the Supreme Court?

Our petition to the Supreme Court is divided into three sections: The first, refers to that part of the decision of the rabbinic court that effectively repeals our client’s (and her 3 children’s) conversions; the second, refers to the rabbinic court’s invalidation of all Rabbi Druckman’s conversions since 1999: and the third, refers to the courts’ directives to the marriage registrars to refrain from registering converts to marry. In each part, we argue that the rabbinic court acted outside its jurisdiction and violated the rules of natural justice (procedural due process).

1. Our client. We argue that the rabbinic court had no jurisdiction to question the status of our client as a Jew because she holds a valid conversion certificate from a state-authorized bet din; and because the issue of the validity of the conversion was not raised by any of the parties. In addition, we claim that the rabbinic court violated the rules of natural justice when it started conducting an inquiry into our client’s religious behavior, without the parties understanding the implications of the questions that were asked of them.


2. Rabbi Druckman. We argue that the rabbinic court had no jurisdiction to hear the case of State Rabbinic Courts vs Druckman. Rabbi Druckman was not seeking a divorce and was not a party to the action. In addition, the rabbinic court violated the rules of natural justice when it accepted hearsay evidence as determinative, and without giving Druckman the opportunity to defend himself.


3. The marriage registrars. We argue that the rabbinic court has no jurisdiction over marriage registrars and cannot direct the way that they do, or do not, register converts to marry. In addition, the rabbinic court violated the rules of natural justice when it ordered the registrars to ignore valid conversion certificates of the state itself.