Perhaps the most well-known definition of an agunah is a woman whose husband has disappeared and is presumed dead.
Perhaps the most well-known definition of an agunah is a woman whose husband has disappeared and is presumed dead.
Perhaps the most well-known definition of an agunah is a woman whose husband has disappeared and is presumed dead. As a result, his wife finds herself in a limbo-like status. Without clear proof of his death, she cannot remarry or move on with her life. To address this, the Talmudic rabbis enacted important leniences regarding what kind of evidence could be used to prove the husband was, in fact, dead. Testimony could be received from just one witness instead of two or even from non-Jews due to the principle, “the rabbis were lenient regarding cases of agunot.”
However, an examination of biblical and rabbinic sources reveals that the concept of the agunah extends beyond the case where a husband has disappeared and is presumed dead. It also describes situations where a husband refuses to give his wife a get. A broader analysis of the concept of the “agunah” can shed important light on the profound difficulties of being trapped in such a position and the extent to which one ought to go to free them.
The word agunah comes from the root ayin, gimel, nun, and its most prominent occurrence is found in the book of Ruth (source 1). When Elimelekh, Naomi, and their two sons leave the land of Israel due to famine and move to Moab, their sons marry two Moabite women, Orpah and Ruth. Soon after, Elimelekh and his sons die, leaving Naomi, Orpah, and Ruth as widows. All alone, without family or resources, Naomi decides to return to the land of Israel and insists to Orpah and Ruth that they should not come with her. She makes clear that even if they desired to come with her out of the hope that she might have more sons with whom they could fulfill the custom of Levirate marriage, they should not do so, because it is unlikely to happen. In returning to the land of Israel with her, they are condemning themselves to life without a husband. In this case, the word “agunah” is used as a verb to describe that they would be shutting themselves off from having a husband by accompanying Naomi rather than returning to their ancestral homes.
|
רות פרק א (יא) וַתֹּאמֶר נָעֳמִי שֹׁבְנָה בְנֹתַי לָמָּה תֵלַכְנָה עִמִּי הַעוֹד לִי בָנִים בְּמֵעַי וְהָיוּ לָכֶם לַאֲנָשִׁים: (יב) שֹׁבְנָה בְנֹתַי לֵכְןָ כִּי זָקַנְתִּי מִהְיוֹת לְאִישׁ כִּי אָמַרְתִּי יֶשׁ לִי תִקְוָה גַּם הָיִיתִי הַלַּיְלָה לְאִישׁ וְגַם יָלַדְתִּי בָנִים: (יג) הֲלָהֵן תְּשַׂבֵּרְנָה עַד אֲשֶׁר יִגְדָּלוּ הֲלָהֵן תֵּעָגֵנָה לְבִלְתִּי הֱיוֹת לְאִישׁ אַל בְּנֹתַי כִּי מַר לִי מְאֹד מִכֶּם כִּי יָצְאָה בִי יַד יְקֹוָק: (יד) וַתִּשֶּׂנָה קוֹלָן וַתִּבְכֶּינָה עוֹד וַתִּשַּׁק עָרְפָּה לַחֲמוֹתָהּ וְרוּת דָּבְקָה בָּהּ: (טו) וַתֹּאמֶר הִנֵּה שָׁבָה יְבִמְתֵּךְ אֶל עַמָּהּ וְאֶל אֱלֹהֶיהָ שׁוּבִי אַחֲרֵי יְבִמְתֵּךְ: (טז) וַתֹּאמֶר רוּת אַל תִּפְגְּעִי בִי לְעָזְבֵךְ לָשׁוּב מֵאַחֲרָיִךְ כִּי אֶל אֲשֶׁר תֵּלְכִי אֵלֵךְ וּבַאֲשֶׁר תָּלִינִי אָלִין עַמֵּךְ עַמִּי וֵאלֹהַיִךְ אֱלֹהָי: (יז) בַּאֲשֶׁר תָּמוּתִי אָמוּת וְשָׁם אֶקָּבֵר כֹּה יַעֲשֶׂה יְקֹוָק לִי וְכֹה יֹסִיף כִּי הַמָּוֶת יַפְרִיד בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵךְ: |
1. Ruth, Chapter 1 [11] And Naomi said: ‘Turn back, my daughters; why will ye go with me? Have I yet sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands? [12] Turn back, my daughters, go your way; for I am too old to have a husband. If I should say: I have hope, should I even have a husband to-night, and also bear sons; [13] would ye tarry for them till they were grown? Would ye shut yourselves off for them and have no husbands? Nay, my daughters; for it grieveth me much for your sakes, for the hand of the Lord is gone forth against me.’ [14] And they lifted up their voice, and wept again; and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law; but Ruth cleaved unto her. [15] And she said: ‘Behold, thy sister-in-law is gone back unto her people, and unto her god; return thou after thy sister-in-law.’ [16] And Ruth said: ‘Entreat me not to leave thee, and to return from following after thee; for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge; thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God; [17] where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried; the Lord do so to me, and more also, if aught but death part thee and me.’ |
What is an agunah?
In turning to the Mishnah (source 2), one finds examples where the root (shoresh) ayin, gimel, nun is used in contexts other than marriage. In the source below, the ogin is an essential part of a ship, but its meaning is unclear.
|
משנה בבא בתרא ה:א המוכר את הספינה - מכר את התורן ואת הנס ואת העוגין, ואת כל המנהיגין אותה, אבל לא מכר לא את העבדים ולא את המרצופין ולא את האנתיקי; ובזמן שאמר לו: היא וכל מה שבתוכה - הרי כולן מכורין. |
2. Mishna Bava Batra 5:1 One who sells a ship has sold along with it the toren, and the nes, and the ogin, and all of the equipment that is used for directing it. But he has not sold the slaves who serve as oarsmen, nor the packing bags that are used for transporting goods, nor the antikei on the ship. And when one said to the buyer: You are purchasing it, the ship, and all that it contains, all of these latter elements are also sold. |
When one sells the ship, it is assumed that the ogin will be sold along with it. In the Talmud (source 3), the rabbis describe the ogin as the ship’s anchor and cite the verse from Ruth to justify their explanation. Just as an anchor holds the ship in place, so too, a woman is held in place and unable to marry due to her status as an agunah.
|
תלמוד בבלי בבא בתרא דף עג עמוד א עוגין - תני רבי חייא: אלו עוגינין שלה, וכן הוא אומר: גהלהן תשברנה עד אשר יגדלו הלהן תעגנה לבלתי היות לאיש. |
3. Talmud Bavli, Bava Batra 73a With regard to the meaning of ogin, Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: These are the ship’s anchors, and so it states: “Would you tarry for them until they were grown? Would you shut yourselves off for them [te’agena] and have no husbands?” (Ruth 1:13). This demonstrates that the root ayin, gimmel, nun, means being shut up and held firmly in one place. |
A woman whose husband will not give a proper get
Though it is not often realized, when one looks closely at the Talmud and its commentaries, one discovers that the term agunah is not limited to cases where a husband has disappeared and is presumed dead. It also includes situations where a husband can and should give a get but refuses to do so. The Mishnah (source 4) explains that once a get is given and before it is received, the husband is able to cancel it. However, Rabban Gamliel would later enact that this cannot be done due to tikkun olam.
|
משנה גיטין פרק ד משנה ב בראשונההיהעושהביתדיןבמקוםאחרומבטלוהתקיןרבןגמליאלהזקןשלאיהועושיןכןמפניתקוןהעולם |
4. Mishnah, Gittin 4:2 In the beginning, [a husband] could appoint a court in another place and nullify it [the get even after it had been issued but before the wife received it]. Rabban Gamliel the Elder established it that one may not do this in order to better the world. |
The Talmud (source 5) clarifies that the reason for Rabban Gamliel’s enactment was either to prevent mamzerim or agunot. Before the change in the law, a husband could cancel the get simply by stating his intent before any two men, which could lead to serious problems. One possibility is that in situations where the get was canceled, the wife was unlikely to know. She would instead assume it to be valid and remarry, not knowing her children would be mamzerim. Another possibility is that the get may be valid but the wife would not rely on it because she would be unsure if her husband had canceled it. As a result, she would not rely upon it, therefore condemning her to life as a de facto agunah. According to both of these approaches, Rabban Gamliel’s enactment did not eliminate the power of a husband to cancel the get but instead required him to do it before a proper beit din of three.
|
תלמוד בבלי גיטין דף לג עמוד א מאי מפני תיקון העולם? ר' יוחנן אמר: מפני תקנת ממזרים, ריש לקיש אמר: מפני תקנת עגונות. ר' יוחנן אמר מפני תקנת ממזרים, סבר לה כרב נחמן, דאמר: בפני שנים, ובי תרי לית להו קלא, והיא לא שמעה ולא ידעה ואזלה ומינסבא, ואיכא ממזרים; וריש לקיש אמר מפני תקנת עגונות, סבר לה כרב ששת, דאמר: בפני ג', ובי תלתא אית להו קלא, ושמעה וידעה ולא מינסבא, ותקנת עגונות הוא דאיכא. |
5. Talmud Bavli, Gittin, 33a What is mean by “to better the world”? — R. Johanan said: To prevent mamzerim [children born from adultery]. Resh Lakish said: To prevent agunot [wife-desertion]. ‘R. Johanan said to prevent mamzerim,’ for he held with R. Nahman who said [that the Get could be cancelled] before [a Beth din of] two: [and since the proceedings] of two are not generally known, so she, not having heard and not knowing [that the Get is cancelled] might go and marry again, and bear illegitimate children. ‘Resh Lakish said to prevent agunot,’ for he again held with R. Shesheth who said [that the husband has to cancel the get] before [a court of] three. The proceedings of three are generally known [to the public], so she hearing and knowing [that the Get was cancelled] would remain unmarried, and we have therefore to save her from being an agunah. |
In the text below (source 6), the Rashba comments on the Talmudic discussion and explores what it means to say that a woman could become an agunah were the husband to cancel the get. He first cites the opinion of Rashi that, by requiring the husband to go to a proper beit din in order to cancel the get, it significantly decreases the likelihood that it will occur. He will not make the extra effort to cancel the get in order to make his wife an agunah. The Rashba (following Tosafot) notes that the term agunah is not always used in these cases but that it still remains appropriate. To make this point, he cites a different ruling that, in certain circumstances, part of a get may be pre-written if a husband travels to a place where there may not be a competent scribe. If this is not allowed, the husband won’t make the extra effort to find a scribe and ensure a proper get is written, which, as the Talmud makes clear in that instance, will leave his wife an agunah for the rest of her days.
|
חידושי הרשב"א גיטין דף לג עמוד א והא מידע ידעה ולא מינסבא, ותקנת עגונות הוא דאיכא. פרש"י ז"ל משום הכי אצרכיניה לילך אחריו או לשלוח שליח משום תקנת עגונות דהוא לא יטרח בכל אלה כדי לעגנה, ואע"פ שהיא אשת איש גמורה ומן הדין אינה יכולה לינשא שייך בה שפיר עגונה כדאמרינן בריש פ' כל הגט ובדין הוא דטופס נמי לא ניכתוב וזימנין דבעי למיזל למדינת הים ולא משכח ספרא ושביק לה ואזיל ומעגן ומותיב לה, ויש לי עוד לפרש משום תקנת עגונות דפעמים שניתן הגט לידה והדר מבטל ליה ושמעה איהי ולא ידעה אימת בטליה וסברה דילמא מקמי דלימטי לידה בטליה ויתבא ומיעגנא שלא כדין. |
6. Rashba, Gittin 33a The interpretation of Rashi is that the rabbis required the husband to go to it [a proper beit din of three to cancel the get] or to send a messenger [to a proper beit din of three to cancel the get] in order to prevent agunot, and he will not trouble himself to do this just to make her an agunah. Even though she is a married women still [if the gett is canceled] and according to the law she cannot remarry, it is still relevant to call her an agunah as was done in (Gittin 26b), for the law is that even the standard language of the gett [lacking the final details] should not be written [in advance of it being given], however, sometimes the husband will need to travel to a country overseas, and he will not find a scribe [who can write the get there for him] and he will abandon his wife and leave her an agunah [therefore it was then permitted for the standard language of the get to be written in advance]. I too have an additional explanation for [how the enactment] would prevent agunot, for sometimes the get would be given her, and then the husband would nullify it [afterwards even though this does not invalidate it since it has already been received], and she would hear [that he did this] but she wouldn’t know when he did it [whether it was before or after she received the get] and she would assume that perhaps it was before she received it and she would incorrectly become an agunah. |
A woman whom the system has failed
One of the more fascinating instances of the term agunah is found in relation to a Talmudic discussion about the power to compel a husband to give a get even through the use of physical violence. The Talmud (Source 7) states that R. Joseph once did this when Abaye saw him and questioned his actions. The use of physical violence to compel a get can only be done by rabbis who received biblical semicha given by those who could trace their semicha lineage back to Moshe Rabbeinu. However, by the time of R. Josef and Abaye, this type of semicha was no longer in practice. Therefore, R. Josef justifies his actions by explaining that rabbis without semicha were given dispensation to act as the agents of prior rabbis who had semicha in order to judge financial disputes. This same dispensation would apply to coercing a get as well.
|
תלמוד בבלי גיטין דף פח עמוד ב אביי אשכחיה לרב יוסף דיתיב וקא מעשה אגיטי, א"ל: והא אנן הדיוטות אנן... א"ל: אנן שליחותייהו קא עבדינן, מידי דהוה אהודאות והלואות. אי הכי, גזילות וחבלות נמי! כי עבדינן שליחותייהו – במילתא דשכיחא, במילתא דלא שכיחא – לא עבדינן שליחותייהו. |
7. Talmud Bavli, Gittin 88b Abaye once found R. Joseph sitting in court and compelling certain men to give a get. He said to him: Surely we are only laymen [rabbis without proper semicha]… He replied: We act as their agents, just as in the case of admissions and transaction of loans. If that is the case [he rejoined], we should do the same with robberies and injuries? — We act as their agents in matters which are of frequent occurrence, but not in matters which occur infrequently. |
The Rashba (source 8) clarifies the logic behind the dispensation. Rabbis without biblical semicha were permitted to judge financial disputes like loans because if they were not granted this power, people would stop giving loans to the poor. A lender will only be willing to loan money if they are confident they can go to beit din to collect. The Rashba then applies this same logic to explain why they are also permitted to coerce the giving of the get. If the rabbis are not given this power, women will refuse to get married because they will know that the rabbis are unable to ensure the giving of the get even if it's required by Jewish law. Such women are to be considered agunot no less than those who are married and cannot escape.
It should also be noted that this text teaches a critically important point about the agunah problem today. Jewish divorce grants much of the power to the husband, and for this reason, the rabbis saw physical coercion as necessary for Jewish divorce to function properly. Without the possibility of physical coercion, as is the case today, halachic divorce as envisioned by the rabbis is effectively broken, and therefore, anyone who claims the status-quo is sufficient fundamentally misunderstands the halacha.
|
חידושי הרשב"א מסכת גיטין דף פח עמוד ב כי עבדינן שליחותיהו במילתא דשכיחא. ועיקר טעמא דעבדינן שליחותיהו משום שלא תנעול דלת בפני לווין כדאיתא בריש פ"ק דסנהדרין, וגיטין נמי דומיא דהודאות והלואות נינהו דאי לא לא מנסבן לגברי והוו להון בנות ישראל עגונות. |
8. Rashba, Gittin 88b “We act as their agent in matters which are of frequent occurrence.” The primary reason that we act as their agent [of the original courts] is so that the door is not closed before those who are poor and need to take out loans as is stated in the beginning of the first chapter of Sanhedrin. Gitin are similar to loans because if not [if they don’t coerce the giving of the get by a recalcitrant husband], women will not get married to men [in the first place] and Jewish women will be agunot. |
When is one an agunah?
In contemporary discussions of the agunah problem, there is often much debate about if and when a woman is to be considered an agunah. Some go so far as to argue that a woman is only an agunah if she has been waiting for a get for many years or is in a position where she would be trapped as an agunah forever. However, a responsa by Rabbi Aryeh Leib Lifshitz (1801-1881), rabbi of Zaslov, a city near Kiev, makes clear that this is not the case. He was presented with a case of a couple who was without children, and when the husband was close to death, he gave his wife a get so that she would not be obligated in yibum and unable to remarry until the husband’s brother did chalitzah. However, the get had some irregularities and it was unclear whether it was valid. Rather than rely on a questionable get, it was suggested that the wife do chalitzah even though the brother was not yet thirteen, he was already twelve, and she would probably have to wait no longer than a year. In the end, he ruled that the get was valid because even if the wife only had to wait just one year, she would be considered an agunah and, therefore, one ought to rely on the lenient opinion that it was a valid get. To make his argument, he draws on the verses from Ruth and notes that the rabbis made no distinctions about when exactly a woman was to be considered an agunah. If she was prevented from remarrying in a case where there was no actual marriage, she was an agunah, and one should rely on lenient positions to free her.
|
שו"ת שם אריה (אבן העזר, ח) נדרשתי לאשר שאלוני בדבר השכיב מרע שנתן גט פטורין לאשתו בק"ק פראנפיל ושבק לן חיים ונשאר יבם קטן בן י"ב שנים והנה בעיר הנ"ל אין נותנין גיטין כלל רק כעת שהיה השעה דחוקה היה הכרח ליתן גטי וכעת נמצא בהגט כמה שנויים... וכתב הרב השואל שלדעתו הוי חשש עגון שאפשר שהיבם יהיה צריד לעקור דירתו למדינה אחרת. גם כי היבם בן י"ב שנים וקטן בקומה ובאברים ומי יודע מתי יביא ב' שערות שיהיה ראוי לחלוץ והנה אף שמבואר ברמ"א בסי' קכ"ח ס"ב בהג"ה דבשעת הדחק יש להכשיר... מ"מ הרבה רבנים מפקפקים בזה די"ל דבנ"ד לא הוי שעת הדחק דאפשר בחליצה והיבם הוא קרוב שנה אחת לימי גדולתו... ושורש מלת עגונה הוא ממה דכתיב גבי נעמי שאמרה לכלותיה גם אם הייתי הלילה לאיש וגו' הלהן תשברנה עד אשר יגדלו הלהן תעגנה. הרי דעגון לזמן עד שיגדל מיקרי עגון. ולאו דווקא עגון עולמית מקרי עגון וא"כ בנ"ד כיון דצריכה להמתין עד שיגדל הוי מקום עגון ובודאי אין סברא לחלק בין שנה אחת לכמה שנים דא"כ נתת דבריך לשיעורין... וראיתי בפני יהושע שם שתמה באמת על התוס' דמנ"ל להקשות ולדמות האי מקום עגון דקאמר הש"ס דלית ליה תקנתא לעולם לעגונה דיבום דאית לה תקנתא בחליצה. ובאמת לע"ד אינו קושיא כ"כ דמה שהיא משועבדת רק ליבם ואסורה לעלמא ג"כ מיקרי מקום עגון דדלמא אינה חפיצה בו ותתעגן ותיתיבי... וא"כ כיוון דהרמ"א הכשיר בשעת הדחק גם בנ"ד ודאי דיש להכשיר דמיקרי שפיר שעת הדחק ומקום עגון |
9. Responsa, Shem Aryeh (Even HaEzer 8) I was asked for my opinion regarding a get that was given by a man who was dying in the city of Pronfil and then died, and there remained a younger brother, twelve years old. However, in this city they did not usually arrange the giving of a get and they only did so in this case because of pressing need [so as to prevent the wife from having to do chalitzah with the young brother] and there were several irregularities [regarding the details of the get]… The rabbi who has asked for my opinion wrote that he believes this to be a case of igun for it is possible that the younger brother may need to leave and move do a different country [and therefore won’t be available to do chalitzah]. Also, the younger brother is twelve years old but small in stature and his physical development. Who knows when he will have two pubic hairs [the biblical sign that he has come of age] and will be able to do chalitzah? The Rema explained (Even HaEzer 128:2) that in a case of pressing need a get [with these kinds of irregularities] would be valid… However, many rabbis question this [leniency] and one could say that in this case there isn’t pressing need for it is possible [for her to be free to remarry] through chalitzah and the brother in-law is a year or less from coming of age… The root of the word agunah comes from what was written regarding Naomi when she said to her daughters in-law: “If I should say: I have hope, should I even have a husband to-night, and also bear sons. Would ye tarry for them till they were grown? Would ye shut yourselves off for them and have no husbands [be agunot]?” The fact she cannot remarry until the brother in-law becomes of age [and is able to do chalitza] is still considered igun. It does not require that one be an agunah forever for it to be considered igun. Therefore, in our case when she must wait until he comes of age, this is to be considered igun, and it is obvious there is no reason to make a distinction between [if she had to wait] one year or a few, for in doing so, one makes distinctions to the laws that did not previously exist... And I saw in the Pnei Yehoshua (Ketubot 3a) who questioned that Tosafot compared a case [in which a widow whose husband died without children and would be required to do yibum or chalitzah] to a situation of igun, since the Talmud says an agunah is one without any solution forever, and there is a way to solve the problem of yibum with chalitzah. In truth, in my opinion, this is not so much of a difficulty, for because she is bound to her brother in-law and prohibited to all others, this too is called igun, for perhaps she does not desire him, and she will remain an agunah… If so then since the Rema validates a get [like this] in a case of pressing need, so too in our case one should validate the get for it is to be considered a case of pressing need and igun. |
The above ruling should not be seen as applying only to cases of yibum, but was in fact cited in a case that came before the beit din of Jerusalem where the husband had been abusive, kicked his wife out of their home, and fled abroad but refused to give his wife a get. The beit din ruled (source 10) that the husband was obligated to give a get and that his wife was to be considered an agunah because of his refusal. They note that even if a couple has only been separated for eighteen months, the wife is to be considered an agunah, and all steps should be taken to ensure the giving of the get.
|
פסק דין רבני 146033/11 בפני בית הדין עומדת תביעת האישה לגירושין שנפתחה בתאריך כ"ב בתמוז תשע"ג (30.6.2013). בנימוקיה לתביעת הגירושין כותבת האישה שבעלה הוא אדם שתיין ומתעלל בה נפשית ומערב את הילדים בעניינים האינטימיים שביניהם, כמו כן אין לה שום יחסי אישות כשנתיים ובעלה שולח אותה לחפש גבר אחר ומבקש ממנה שתעזוב את הבית. כמו כן האישה מציינת שהיא צעירה מהבעל בעשרים ושלוש שנים (כיום הבעל בן שישים וחמש והאישה בת ארבעים ושלוש), ו"אינה מסוגלת להסתכל עליו" ושהוא עושה לה הרבה צער שאינה יכולה לפרט בכתב התביעה... ויש להוסיף בזה כי הגדרת "מקום עיגון" אינה דווקא כשיש חשש שתישאר עגונה כל ימיה, אלא אף עיגון לזמן נחשב לעיגון וכמו שכתב בשו"ת שם אריה (אבן העזר סימן ח), עיין שם שכתב ששורש מלת עגונה הוא ממה שנאמרה נעמי "הלהן תעגנה", הרי דעיגון לזמן עד שיגדל, מיקרי עיגון ולאו דווקא עיגון עולמית מיקרי עיגון וכו', ובוודאי אין סברה לחלק בין שנה אחת לכמה שנים שאם כן נתת דבריך לשיעורין. ועיין שם שדייק כדבריו משו"ת רד"ך (בית ג) וסיים שם דבכי האי גוונא דנידון דידיה שצריכה להמתין בערך שנה ואפשר יותר – יש לומר דהווי מקום עיגון, עד כאן דבריו. ומעתה לפי זה, בנדון דידן שכבר עברה תקופה של שנה וחצי שהבעל נעלם ואין כל סימן או רמז שעומד לשוב לאשתו, פשיטא דהווי מקום עיגון דבכי האי גוונא כופין להוציא. |
10. Ruling, Beit Din of Jerusalem, 146033/11 Before the beit din stands a claim for divorce by a woman that was opened on June 30, 2013. In the reasons given for requesting a divorce, she writes that her husband is an alcoholic and psychologically abused her and involved the kids in intimate matters that were between her and her husband. She has not had marital relations with him for two years and her husband has sent her out to find another man and has requested she leave the home. The woman also noted she is twenty three years younger than her husband (today, he is sixty five and she is fourty three), and she is “unable to even look at him”, because he has caused her great suffering which she can’t even fully even put into writing… One must add regarding this case that the definition of “being an agunah” is not only when there is a concern that woman will be an agunah forever. Rather, even being an agunah for a limited period of time is to be considered igun as was written in the responsa of Shem Aryeh (Even HaEzer 8), see there… And now according to this, in our case, in which it has already been a year and a half since the husband disappeared, and there is no evidence her will return to his wife, it is obvious that she is agunah, and therefore he can be coerced to give the get. |
What is it like to be an agunah?
While the sources above describe the technical realities that can cause a woman to be an agunah, the rabbis also had a deep sensitivity to the psychological reality of being an agunah. In a responsa by Rabbi Sinai Sapir (source 11), who died in 1875 and served as the head of the beit din of Radzin, he frees an agunah whose husband had disappeared, and in doing so, also addresses criticism of his ruling. Though the Talmudic rabbis stated one should be lenient in cases of agunot, he goes out of his way to emphasize that freeing agunot should be viewed as a matter of life or death and that leniency is always preferable.
|
מנחת עני אבן העזר סימן נא הנה אם אמנם השגות ודחיות הותרו בצבור אם יש בהם על מה שיסמוכו כמו שכתוב תורה מונחת בקרן זוית וכו', אולם בענינים כאלה בעסק עגונות לא נכון לעשות כן, לגבב חומרות עפ"י השגות ודחיות, בזה כחא דהיתירא עדיף טפי כי הוא נוגע לנפשות |
11. Responsa, Minchat Ani, Even HaEzer 51 Regarding the objections and difficulties that were let loose in the community and if they are to be relied upon as it is written, “the Torah is found in the corner” [meaning its available to anyone and therefore anyone can then raise a halachic difficulty]. However in matters such as agunot it is not correct to do this, to pile up strictures due to objections and difficulties, because in these matters the power of leniency is preferred because these are matters of life and death. |
Though he does not provide the reason for this, a possible explanation can be found in the responsa of Rabbi Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor (1817-1896), one of the leading halachic authorities of the nineteenth century. Rabbi Skeptor was distinguished for his efforts to free agunot, and his responsa served as a model for this. The responsa below (source 12), however, is not about an agunah but rather a different halachic status, which also imposes profound limitations regarding marriage. In this particular case, he was asked whether a child who had a testicle removed would be allowed to marry. If such a defect prevented him from procreating, he could be considered a pitzua daka and permitted only to marry a convert. (See, for example, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Forbidden Sexual Relationships, 16:2.)
In his responsa, he cites a short story from the Talmud Yerushalmi about a rabbi whose son was born with a condition that led to him being castrated. In that instance, they fasted and prayed that the child should die, rather than grow up and be unable to marry. On the one hand, the story sounds deeply insensitive to our modern ears. Life with a disability is not a fate worse than death. However, Rabbi Spektor draws an important conclusion from the story, one that is relevant to agunot and others. To be prevented from marrying and becoming fully part of the Jewish community forces one into a profound position of marginalization that can come with intense suffering. For this reason, a lenient ruling should be seen as a matter of pikuach nefesh, and the same would apply to agunot.
It is often the case that women who become agunot feel deeply isolated from their community, which has frequently failed to take their plight seriously. Since get refusal is often an indicator of abuse during the marriage, suffering as an agunah is often the final straw for women who have known years of pain and suffering. As a result, thoughts of self-harm and even suicide are all too common. In this sense, Rabbi Spektor was absolutely correct in viewing such cases as examples of pikuach nefesh, and that they should be treated accordingly.
|
שו"ת עין יצחק חלק א - אבן העזר סימן יא נשאלתי באחד שיש לו מיום לידתו חולי שקראפיל פעם באבר א' פעם בחבירו ועתה זה כשמנה שנים נולד לו נקב מפולש בביצה ימנית שקורין פיסטיל והנקב הולך וגדול בכל עת עד שגזרו הרופאים לחתוך הביצה הנ"ל ונשאלתי אם מותר לבא בקהל ד'... ובירושלמי שבת פ' ר"א דמילה סוף הלכה ב' ויבמות פ"ח ה' א' איתא רב אדא בר אהבה אתיליד לי' חד בר נש מימסמס בה ומית אמר רבי אבין נעשה כרות שפכה ונתענה עליו שימות. רבנן דקסרין אמרין נעשה פצוע דכה ונתענה עליו שימות. ופי' הפני משה דלכן נתענה עליו לפי דאינו ראוי בקהל. הרי דמצוה להתענות עליו שימות דכיון דנפסל בקהל דיותר טוב לו המות מהחיים. ע"כ מצוה רבתא להשתדל להיתירא בענינים כאלו לבל יודחו מקהל ד' כי זהו ענין פקוח נפשות. |
12. Responsa, Ein Yitzchak, Even HaEzer 11 I was asked about one who from the day of his birth he was sick with disease in one of his limbs that then went to another and now that he is eight a hole has emerged in his right testicle and it continued to grow until the doctors ordered it to be cut off, and I was asked whether he is permitted to enter into the congregation of God [to marry]… In the Talmud Yerushalmi (Shabbat 19:2) it happened that Rabbi Ada bar Achva had a son who was born circumcised. When they went to take a drop of blood [due to the obligation of hatafat dam brit] he died. Rabbi Avin said [that he didn’t die] but became castrated, and they fasted [and prayed] that he should die. The rabbis of Caesaria said that he became as one who couldn’t have children, and they fasted [and prayed] that he should die. The Pnei Moshe explained that they fasted since the child would not be able to marry, and it is a mitzvah to fast that the child should die since he cannot marry and death would be better than life. Therefore, there is a great mitzvah to try to permit these kind of matters, so that he doesn’t becomes excluded from the community of God, and this is a matter of life and death. |
Rabbinic empathy for the plight of agunot also expressed itself in an awareness of how such cases often ended and that few women are willing to condemn themselves to a life of suffering. Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi (1435-1526) addresses this dilemma in a responsa (source 13) and notes that the most likely outcome for agunot is that they will choose to be with a man regardless of the consequences. Therefore, if one is not lenient and does not free her, one practically guarantees that mamzerim will be a consequence. While not stated, it was often the case that agunot would leave Jewish religious life entirely to join a community that would allow her to marry. Similar dynamics exist today, as many agunot feel they have been given no option but to abandon observance or choose to be with someone who isn’t Jewish. Those who oppose efforts to free agunot out of the concern that all segments of the community won’t accept it and that such efforts create mamzerim must contend with the words of Rabbi Mizrachi. Leaving a woman an agunah is as much, if not more, likely to lead to the same outcome.
|
שו"ת הרא"ם (סימן לו) מכיון דאיכא עיגונא דאתתא דנפיק מיניה חורבה אין ראוי להניח כל התנאים והגאונים המקילים בזה ללכת אחרי המחמירים, שהרי שנינו במסכת עדיות: "למה נזכרו דברי היחיד במקום הרבים הואיל ואין הלכה? אלא אם יראה בית דין דברי היחיד ויסמוך עליו", כגון בשעת הדחק... ואין לך שעת הדחק יותר מזה שאם תישאר האשה עגונה כל ימיה ודאי נפיק מניה חורבא, וכל שכן בזמנים אלו שבעוונותינו הרבים רבו הפרוצות ונתמעטו הצנועות, כל שכן כשיהיו המקילים רבים ואחרונים שבוודאי ראוי לפסוק כוותייהו... |
13. Responsa, Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi, 36 Since the woman is an agunah, tragedy will certainly come because of her situation. It is not correct to set aside the tanaaim and geonim who were lenient in this matter in order to pursue the positions of the strict. As it was taught in Massechet Eduyot ‘Why is the minority opinion mentioned alongside that of the majority? So a future beit din would see the position and rely upon it,’ in pressing circumstances… And there is no greater pressing circumstances than this for if she remains an agunah all her days, tragedy will certainly come because of her, and all the more so in our times when, due to our many sins, the licentious have increased and the modest have decreased. Surely one should rely upon the many later lenient authorities for it is correct to rule like them. |
The Jewish people and God are agunot
In perhaps its most surprising yet important application, the term agunah is also used to describe the Jewish people and God. As is well known, the prophets and the rabbis see the covenant between the Jewish people and God as a marriage. While this covenant was not broken by the destruction of the first Temple and being sent into exile, the Jewish people felt in some sense abandoned by God. In Eichah (source 14), the Jewish people are described as a widow, but the midrash (source 15) clarifies that the Jewish people do in fact, remain married to God. However, they now experience that relationship as an agunah, whose husband is not there to be with them, and their future remains uncertain. In the final text (source 16), a responsa from Rabbi Joel Sirkis (1561-1640), he writes that it is not only the Jewish people who are an agunah but God as well. To make this point, he draws on the kabbalistic idea that the shechinah, the feminine aspect of the divine, remains in exile along with the Jewish people until the final redemption. In his eyes, every agunah is to be seen as an aspect of the shechinah in exile, and if one is successful in freeing her, it is not just a good deed but a redemptive act, one that has profound consequences in both heaven and earth.
|
איכה א:א אֵיכָה יָשְׁבָה בָדָד הָעִיר רַבָּתִי עָם הָיְתָה כְּאַלְמָנָה רַבָּתִי בַגּוֹיִם שָׂרָתִי בַּמְּדִינוֹת הָיְתָה לָמַס: |
14. Eichah 1:1 Alas! Lonely sits the city once great with people! She that was great among nations has become like a widow; The princess among states has become a thrall. |
|
איכה רבה (בובר) פרשה א כאלמנה. שהיא יושבת עגונה ממתנת את בעלה שהניחה והלך לו בדרך רחוק, ולא אלמנה ממש, וכה"א כי לא אלמן ישראל ויהודה מאלהיו (ירמיה נא ה) |
15. Midrash, Eichah Rabba, 1 “as a widow.” She sits as an agunah waiting for her husband who has left her and gone far away. She is not an actual widow, as it says, (Jeremiah 51:5) “For Israel and Judah are not a widower of their God.” |
|
שו"ת ב"ח החדשות סימן סד וכל מי שמתיר עגונה אחת בזמן כאלו בנה אחת מחרבות ירושלים העליונה להציל בחינה אחת מן אשת חיל וד"ל. |
16. Responsa, Bach, Ha-chadashot 64 All those who free even one agunah at this time, it is as if they have rebuilt one of the destroyed buildings of the supernal Jerusalem, to save an aspect of a “woman of valor.” |
The book of Ruth must also be seen as a story of redemption. Though Naomi is unlikely to have more children of her own, Ruth accompanies her to the land of Israel and stays with her. This act eventually leads to her marrying Boaz, and the two of them having children, an act that serves as redemption for Naomi. Though her sons and husband are long dead, when Ruth’s child is born, it is as if Naomi herself has had a child. It states, (Ruth 4:16-17) “Naomi took the child and held it to her bosom. She became its foster mother. And the women neighbors gave him a name, saying, ‘A son is born to Naomi!’” A woman who thought her family would end with her has become a mother once more.
What often goes unlooked in all of this is the simple fact that Ruth did not need to return with Naomi to the land of Israel. She could have gone back to her home and started her life over again. Though she wouldn’t have had a Jewish life, it would be a much fuller one than the life that awaited her in the land of Israel. However, she chooses to accompany Naomi, and, in a sense, becomes an agunah by choice. Her unbelievable sacrifice is redemptive not only for Naomi but for the Jewish people as well. Her great-grandson will be King David, from whom the moshiach will be descended.
The same holds true for the agunot of today, for they too have the option of abandoning religious observance and the Jewish community to live proper lives without restrictions. In choosing to stay, despite the consequences, they demonstrate a faith in God, Torah, and the Jewish people that far outshines the rest of us. It's the kind of faith that can only be described as redemptive, and it’s the responsibility of the rest of us to live up to it.
By: Rabbi Zachary Truboff, Director of the IBD Institute for Agunah Research and Education