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.

Here's an editorial that I wrote in JPost:

The First Word: Sages of Israel - Take modernity by the horns
SUSAN WEISS, THE JERUSALEM POST
Nov. 3, 2006

On November 7 and 8, a cadre of Orthodox rabbinic judges is scheduled to come to Jerusalem from 15 countries to discuss the problem of agunot (women bound to dead Jewish marriages because their husbands refuse or can't deliver a bill of divorce to them). According to conference organizers, this is the first time in hundreds of years that the rabbis have convened for this purpose and they are expecting great things.

Wow, do I hope they succeed. But I guess I'm insulted. No one has asked me what I think. In fact, no woman - activist, aguna, home-maker or otherwise - is invited to be at the conference in any capacity, and certainly not being given an opportunity to air her views. So, in the hope that someone will bring this to the attention of the rabbis, let me tell you, and them, what I want, what I don't want and what will happen if I don't get what I want.

Read what I want and I don't want (the full article) at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378319817&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
[ Back to the Article ]
Copyright 1995-2006 The Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com/

the upcoming rabbinic conference

The rabbinic conference was canceled!