Talk:Agunah

Untitled

I've NPOVed this a bit. I was wondering if there is a legal reference for Judge Menachem ha-Kohen's verdict of >400,000 NIS for withholding a get. JFW | T@lk 15:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

We need more modern-day sources as well. Could anyone reference a cause celebre agunah case here? JFW | T@lk 20:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

One example of the "lion's den" case is women whose husbands died in the Twin Towers. Even if their husbands's bodies were not identified, women have been alowed to remarry. Chani

Could you provide a source that we could WP:CITE for this? This is a very good modern-day example that would really inform the article, Chani. JFW | T@lk 22:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

But after all this todo the husband shows up, it seems to hit the fan anyway. This todo appears provisional at best - not a real divorce just a standin separation cum new marriage in hopes the old hubbie stays dead.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 23 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Springwinter19.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Aguna

Redaktor (talk · contribs) changed the spelling to "aguna", which seems to be supported by a Google search. However, the page title is still AgunaH. Anyone object to a formal move? JFW | T@lk 16:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This move has my strong support. --Redaktor 16:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, it just didn't look right to me, so I looked up similar words, and this is what I found:

• Binah not Bina
• Haganah not Hagana
• Hannah not Hanna
• Judah not Juda
• Kinah not Kina
• Kallah not Kalla
• Mikvah not Mikva
• Tumah not Tuma
• Taharah not Tahara
• Terumah not Teruma
• Tzedakah not Tzedaka

We don't yet have an article on "Schinah".

On the other hand, I found:

• Halakha not Halakhah
• Shiva not Shivah
• Tshuva not Tshuvah.

When I did a Google search; "aguna" had double the amount of hits then "agunah", but "agunah's" hits were more of substance. Also when doing the search on "aguna"; Google asked "Did you mean: laguna ?"; kind of not sure if this is what I meant.

Based on all this; in my humble opinion "agunah" is correct, with "aguna" redirected to it. Itzse 21:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I always regretted not calling myself "Itzseh" or "Itzeh"! Itzse 21:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can ever decide what is 'correct'. We can try though to find a sensible and consistent spelling. There really is no good reason for the final 'h' in most of these words. Judah is clearly an exception since it has passed into the English language that way.--Redaktor 22:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You have a point; but I think that most of these words written with an "h" are actually pronounced "ah" closer to a "mapik heh" then for example "tuna" where the "a" doesn't continue with a flourish. I think we can say that Tuna is pronounced Tu-na but agunah or aguna is pronounced agun-ah. Whatever you decide is fine with me, I was only trying to clarify the issue. Itzse 19:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope no-one thinks it should be pronounced agun-ah, because that would indeed not be correct. The pronunciation is agu-na. Discussion here also tends to favour omission of final silent he. --Redaktor 12:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Being refused a get - not an agunah?

Tltdma (talk · contribs) removed from the intro the paragraph that describes the plight of women whose husbands refuse to grant a get as means of extortion. I don't understand his point that "this is not the halachic definition of agunah". Well, Wikipedia does not use halacha as a content guideline - almost everybody refers to these women as agunot. That includes a long cover article in the Jewish Observer some years ago. Lishna de-alma nakat. JFW | T@lk 14:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the article needs to seperate the modern usage, which is technically incorrect, from the classical usage. Wikipedia is not a halachic dictionary, but here it is defining a halachic term. To confuse it with a modern activist term is not informative.

The term in its classical sense refers to a woman who cannot remarry because her marital status is in doubt. That's the definition of the word. A woman who is not recieving a get because her husband doesn't want a divorce is halachicly an ishes ish. She's stam a married woman. She has a right to collect support from her husbands estate, he must still provide for her physical and medical needs, and if he dies her children inherit property and she walks away capable of marrying a cohen. A real aggunah is in a much harsher reality where she is under all the chumros of a married woman and all the chumros of a single woman.

Both definitons need to be mentioned, but the sections should be clearly seperated. It might even be helpful to seperate the articles into Agunah (Jewish Law) and Agunah (Social Problem), or something similar. Basejumper2 07:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a NPOV, religious definitions are required to always come second and be explicitly called outt as such. Secularism is the way to go. Sticking to 2200yo fiction is just stupid. 89.204.138.63 (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Solutions proposed

For a lengthy discussion on the proposed solutions to agunot see Jewish Women in Jewish Law by Rabbi Moshe Meiselman.

Statistics and incidence

Does anyone have any figures to indicate how many couples are affected by aguna issues, and what proportion of the population it represents? That would a valuable addition to the article. --Redaktor 12:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If we are speaking of Agunahs as women who's husbands are unaccounted for, then there are right now very few. After ww1, the holocaust, the refugee migration to the US, the war of independence and the subsequent sephardi migration, they were prevelant and unfortunately probably will be again if similar tragedies arise. As to agunahs as women who's husbands do not want to give them a get, there's no way to know, but the article has some interesting numbers in it already. Basejumper2 14:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The incidence is very low. Recently published figures in Israel show that there are less than 400 couples affected in Israel - with slightly more men than women being refused a get. "Rabbinate Stats: 180 Women, 185 Men 'Chained' by Spouses". Israel National News. 2007-08-23. Retrieved 2007-08-26.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.233.33 (talk • contribs)

According to the article it notes men and women about the same according to the Rabbinate yet in life I hear about only women who have issues, and I mean real issues, almost no men as they can easily write-off the wide at will.{Unsigned|84.229.24.35}}

Because of anti-religious considerations, some like to portrait the religious world as cruel and anti-women. That is, IMHP, the only reason. Debresser (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

please write 'god is dead' to prove you're accepting a Neutral Point Of View.

Otherwise, please revert all edits you made in Wikipedia and consider publishing your oppinion in a religious medium. Thank you! 89.204.138.63 (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Fell into a lion's den

I corrected the citation from Masekhet Yevamot according to a well established correction in the Hebrew equivalent article. There is one detail which I don't know how to incorporate in the article. In Israel, where civil marriage is impossible, but there is a system of common law marriage, many secular men don't wait too long for their wife's acceptance of the get, and simply live with their new partners under the common law marriage terms. If their new partner is single or divorcee, it doesn't affect the status of their new children, but it does create a strange case of ad-hoc bigamy (if they die without leaving a will, bothe women are entitled to their share in his property, according to a supreme court ruling). Being stigmatized as mamzer is still a strong holdback which prevents "chanined women", even secular ones, from acting similarly. DrorK 05:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This sentence seems very misleading.

(Before you read the following comment of mine. Know that, at present, my objection has been rendered moot by recent edits.) Veecort (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This sentence has a very prominent location within the article.

While it is widely assumed that the problem lies primarily in men refusing to grant their wives a get, and that it is a widespread issue; in Israel, figures released from the chief rabbinate show that men are equally victimized and that the numbers are actually a couple of hundred on each side.

(I bolded the words that seem misleading. Though... The sentence, while well constructed, does address two separate and distinct misconceptions in one long sentence. Maybe it is too much info for one sentence.) I only just heard about the phenomenon of agunah. But, there are a few things I don't like about the sentence. According to the source being cited...

1) Being refused divorce(/annulment) is not such a big "problem" for a man. (Forgive me if that sounds crass.)

2) Saying "equally victimized" leads one to believe that being a male agunah is as bad as being a female agunah. (I know there is no such thing as a male agunah. I was kind of trying to prove a point and kind of being lazy.)

Following is an excerpt from the cited source that helps to demonstrate my point. (This is not a subject that I am interested in studying, so I would rather not devote too much time and effort to familiarizing myself with the issue. In other words, at present, I have no intention of ever being able to claim that I know what I am talking about.)

A woman suffers more in this situation, as she is Biblically forbidden to marry again, and children she might bear to another man would be considered bastards according to Halakhah [Jewish Law]. A man is similarly not permitted to marry before being divorced, but the ban is much less severe, and in any event his future children will not be considered illegitimate.

Veecort (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind.Veecort (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent additions

Please review WP:NPOV, and in particular WP:UNDUE. The recent additions are the thoughts of a very small minority שיטה יחידאה, are not necessarily reflective of the current majority Orthodox opinion, and are thus inappropriate for a general article in the encyclopedia, especially in the volume in which they were presented. The sourcing is not the issue, it is the WP:FRINGEness of it that is. -- Avi (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that you should add your belief that this is the belief of a small minority, if that is what you think, rather than leaving it out of an encyclopedia article. I personally made sure that I indicated that even Mnachem Risikoff offered his opinions as issues to be discussed in an halkhic framework, not to be implemented -- and the fact that 4 recent books have cited his views, thinking that the fact that an ultra-orthodox rabbi had advanced those ideas so early on, seemed significant to them!!

I think it is NOT a small minority belief that such ideas be DISCUSSED, rather than implemented. In any event, for an article on agunah not to include the fact that such issues have been raised -- even if the article then notes that they were ultimately not accepted -- is not doing justice to the subject. And, I should add, this was not some fringe idea by someone whose orthodoxy was "suspect" by others.

I absolutely believe this section should stay in the article, although I believe you have the right (and perhaps even the responsibility) of framing them with sentences that state the ideas never were put into action by recognized orthodox authorities.

By the way, did you look at the references? These authors are well respected!

Floridarabbi (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources are not the point, the opinion is. I have asked for others to comment here at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Agunah; let us see what other participants have to say. -- Avi (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with FloridaRabbi that the fact that there are opinions in the orthodox world searching for solutions should be in this article. I agree also with Avi that the format at the moment is in violation of WP:UNDUE. I suggest that a two line (max) mention should be made with a See main directing to R' Risikof's article. The opinion and the explanation belongs there and not in this article. This article should make brief mention of it and no more. Joe407 (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Perhaps a sentence or two with a wikilink to Risikoff would be appropriate, but the volume of material there now added by someone intimately acquainted with the Risikoffs (see the contributions of the user) is a violation of WP:UNDUE. -- Avi (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Sounds like it's getting personal here,and I want to avoid that. In fact, if in discussion I had been advised to cut down the note to a couple of sentences, instead of having everthing I had written deleted -- twice -- there would never have been an argument on my part. I admit I am relatively new to wikipedia. I have just now cut down the reference to Risikoff, and left multiple references to works that reference him (as well as other rabbis) in major ongoing studies of this issue. I have also added the fact that there are orthodox rabbis (including Emanuel Rackman z"l) who have taken it upon themselves to annul marriages, but these unilateral actions have so far been condemned. I think this section is very important to an encyclopedia article on the agunah, and has improved the article as a whole. If others think it should be changed even more, then, of course, it should be. And by the way, creating the page on Risikoff was what led me to add something about him to this page -- but a recent article by Gershon Greenberg, on another subject (the Holocaust) devoted 16 pages to his writings. He was a prolific writer, often quoted and cited -- including in many works (some cited here) about the agunah. Floridarabbi (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Floridarabbi - Thank you for your revisions. I feel that this is no longer in violation of WP:UNDUE. Thank you also for your civility in this debate. Avi? What say you? Joe407 (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Much better. I think that the section is lacking in that there are many, many cases over the centuries of how Orthodox Judaism tried to deal with this horrible problem, and there must be thousands of t’shuvos on this, but, not being a baki in Even HaEzer, I don't know of enough to flesh out the section. -- Avi (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for your guidance and help! Avi, I do reference the Freimann book, and mention there is a chapter that gives a good history of many of the teshuvot you mention, over a period of 2000 years -- so someone who wants more can go there. So I hope that's a help, as well. Again, thank you both for helping me as I get more involved with Wikipedia! Floridarabbi (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Agunah

I've created an article on the Chaim Grade novel, The Agunah, and I am mentioning it here in case anyone thinks it is worthy of inclusion in this article, perhaps in the hatnote.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Choor monster (talk • contribs)

Done. -M.Altenmann >t 23:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Agunah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071014052041/http://www.icjw.org/showitem.asp?itemid=advocacy_Agunot&title=Religious%20Rights%20(Agunot) to http://www.icjw.org/showitem.asp?itemid=advocacy_Agunot&title=Religious%20Rights%20%28Agunot%29

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Checked and found that the information is not in the source, so I added a tag to it. Debresser (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

While blogspot itself is not a reliable source, perhaps someone has the time to listen to the interview as regards how R' Elyashiv felt about this issue, as well as R' Moshe, and yibadel machayim l'chayim R'Dovid feel about hafkaa and prenups: http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2015_10_01_archive.html. -- Avi (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the two sources of R' Zalman Nechemia Goldberg, I was not able to find on-line versions. However, it is clear he has wrote against using Hafka'ah this way a number of times (see http://haemtza.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-road-paved-with-good-intentions.html where it quotes a translation of a letter of R' Goldberg specifically mentioning the Tehumin article(s)). -- Avi (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The sources are examples of rabbis who say these measures are against halakha, or they say that "most Orthodox leaders" hold that they are against halakha? Because it is the latter we need, not the first. Debresser (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The article from Weider and R' Cohen say that historically and modernly it is not used nor accepted for use. I couldn't find the two Goldberg sources to confirm, so perhaps we should delete those for now. -- Avi (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we should. Debresser (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed from the lead

I've removed the following content from the lead, because WP:NOTNEWS:

In a 2015 case a beth din (rabbinical court) published an advertisement naming a man who had refused his (ex-)wife a get for 15 years, refusing him entry into any synagogue and suggesting that people should avoid social and business contact with him. Ten years before an advert criticising a man who had denied his wife a get had been placed by the beth din, but without calling for action.

In 2007 the Chief Rabbinate found that in Israel men and women were refused divorce in equal numbers, 180 women and 185 men over a two-year period. The Director-General of the Rabbinical Courts said this showed that "the claims by women's organizations of thousands of women whose husbands refuse to give them divorces have no basis in reality". Nevertheless,

"A woman suffers more in this situation, as she is Biblically forbidden to marry again, and children she might bear to another man would be considered mamzerim (bastards) according to halakhah. A man is similarly not permitted to marry before being divorced, but the ban is much less severe (because monogamy was instituted by one single overreaching authority in Europe in around the year 1000CE, and was accepted in Europe (Ashkenazim), whereas Sefardic and Mizrahi (Eastern) Jewish communities did not until very recently.) This considered, his future children will not be considered illegitimate."

There is a need for this article to be less about events and initiatives and more about the big picture. JFW | T@lk 16:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the statistical information. I agree about individual cases, but it is important to know how many cases there are, and how they are divided between the sexes. Perhaps you removed that part by mistake. In either case, it should definitely be in the article. Debresser (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Agunah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070706112933/http://www.youngisraelrabbis.org.il/divorce.htm to http://www.youngisraelrabbis.org.il/divorce.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001162535/http://www.youngisraelrabbis.org.il/prenup.htm to http://www.youngisraelrabbis.org.il/prenup.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070706113557/http://www.youngisraelrabbis.org.il/index.html to http://www.youngisraelrabbis.org.il/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Agunah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070728055519/http://www.jofa.org/about.php/advocacy to http://www.jofa.org/about.php/advocacy
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120328104825/http://www.voices-magazine.com/index.php?page=inside_page&id=180 to http://www.voices-magazine.com/index.php?page=inside_page&id=180
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mucjs.org/ARUDraftFinal.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit war

@Hopesings69: and @Debresser:, can we discuss the proposed changes and objections against these over here? Generally speaking I would recommend making small changes with WP:BRD and ongoing discussion. JFW | T@lk 14:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Debresser (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd also ask Hopesings69 to refrain from personal attacks, and assume good faith. Debresser (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest to exclude people who try to portrait a religious oppinion as fact. Neutral Point Of View means Secularism First. 89.204.138.63 (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Anti-female bias and Orthodox apologetics

The current page is rife with Orthodox apologetics and editorial dismissiveness of women's real lives. I fixed that language in many places, and added about a dozen modern sources.

The agunah issue is fundamentally this: Jewish law has a deep-seated gender bias in divorce, unequal exit power. Several actually:

• The system of getting divorced is one in which the man acts and the women receives
• The only person whose volition matters according to the core halakha is the man's not the woman's
• Rabeinu Gershom's takana is just that, a takana. It is taken as flexible. Whereas for women, there is zero flexibility Point of fact: Dozens of men get married each year in Israel while leaving their first wives agunot. I will find the exact number if it available.
• This gets to the main imbalance, which is that a man always has an exit. Whether with heter 100 rabonim, or by just flouting halakha, he can do what he wants with zero ZERO consequences. No mamzerim. No forbidding him from marrying a lover. None of that. No consequences. (And also, no body clock). By contrast, a woman who wants to get on with her life has no heter available to her, has zero option for marrying a second man, is and start a new family risks creating a mamzer, and is forbidden from marrying her lover. This is inherent halakhic gender imbalance, which is at the root of the problem of agunot. It makes women vulnerable to extortion in exchange for their freedom.

What this means is women can become stuck in non-existent marriages to men who are free. The woman is paradoxically still married to a man who is no longer married to her. That, in a nutshell, should explain everything about this story. No amount of explaining away rabbinic thinking can change these underlying facts. The Jewish marriage is a threat to women, not to men. Men have free exit power, and women do not.

All this needs to be explained at the outset to the wikipedia audience otherwise it is simply orthodox apologetics, which is how it stands now.

And the Israeli rabbinical courts are fully aware of this. Hence the "Agunah Fund", in which the rabbinic court uses charity funds to literally bribe men who refuse to give a get. The Center for Women's Justice brought a lawsuit about this, which you can read about in the book, Marriage and Divorce in the Jewish State, by Susan Weiss and Netty Gross-Horowitz.

And the idea that men are "equally" anchored into marriage is an absolute lie. Men have outs, as I just explained. And most cases in which the beit din declares a man an "chained" are cases in which the man has agreed to give a get in exchange for extortion, and when the woman refuses to be extorted, the court declares her to be recalcitrant. Again, I refer you to the very important book, And the Israeli rabbinical courts are fully aware of this. Hence the "Agunah Fund", in which the rabbinic court uses charity funds to literally bribe men who refuse to give a get. The Center for Women's Justice brought a lawsuit about this, which you can read about in the book, Marriage and Divorce in the Jewish State, by Susan Weiss and Netty Gross-Horowitz. And many more important sources here

Finally, the page has a very distorted narrative that rabbis (meaning Orthodox rabbis) are doing "whatever they can" for agunot. The exact opposite is true. When rabbis try to do the right thing and work within halakha, such as using hafkaat kiddushin, they are vilified. Look what happened to Rabbi Rackman, to Rabbi Sperber, to others. As soon as a rabbi does the right thing, his colleagues isolate him. This, too, is part of the agunah shonda and needs to be explained if wikipedia is going to be truthful.

On a personal note, debresser, your profile implies that you literally see yourself as speaking as a messenger of God, or "Hashem". I believe that such a stance should completely disqualify you from writing on Wikipedia, because your obvious bias is in your name. Hopesings69 (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I see you came here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS (see #3 there). Your last paragraphs comes over a bit paranoid. Most of your statements regarding Jewish law and actual rabbinical practice are either incorrect or have been overly simplified in order to promote a certain POV. Your language sounds like you are speaking at a feminist rally, not like a contribution to a serious Wikipedia article or talkpage discussion. Lastly, what is your personal involvement with this issue? Debresser (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Hopesings69 Some problems I found after looking over your edits: An estimated 100,000 women in Israel, or one out of every seven married Jewish women, is at risk of being an agunah. See WP:CRYSTAL; The problem of agunot, women who are legally bound to an effectively non-existent marriage and vulnerable to emotional and financial blackmail in exchange for their freedom, is considered one of the greatest injustices within religious Jewish practice. As a result, agunah activists around the world have been pressuring Orthodox rabbis for generations to release agunot from their abusive situations. WP:WEASEL and WP:NOTADVOCACY; However, today, when the problem has more to do with domestic violence and abuse, rabbis are much more reluctant to engage in creative halakhic solutions. Unclear, and WP:NOR; The only real halakhic solution to free agunot is the annulment. WP:UNDUE; Although during certain periods in Jewish history, the rabbis encouraged recalcitrant husbands to do the right thing (Maimonides, for example, was a proponent of even violent pressure tactics in order to alleviate the suffering of an agunah), medieval rabbis dialed back on those practices and determined that if there is even a hint that the man was coerced, the divorce is invalid. Unencyclopedic language, no mention of Maimonides in source given; Moreover, other patriarchal practices of Jewish marriage and divorce place women in danger from becoming an agunah. WP:NOTADVOCACY; There are no consequences to a man for ignoring the law and taking a second wife. WP:OVERSIMPLIFY; There is a solution within the halakhic system to release an agunah, which is to nullifying the marriage based on the premise of a "fraudulent purchase" -- that is, had a woman known that this would be her fate with this man, she would have never married him. Misrepresents sources given which indicate that this route is almost universally recognized as invalid. Great care must be taken before attempting to insert this sort of material into the established version. StonyBrook (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

why do orthodox jews act violently against women? and continue doing so when told?

Please do not answer unless you're saying sorry 89.204.138.63 (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Criteria for applying pressure

Newmila added a recent case reported in the popular press as an example of how pressure may be applied to a recalcitrant husband. I think that the popular press is not a good source for such information, as it is very prone to narrow focus on the specific case at hand. I think a better source would examine the criteria systematically. The theme throughout this entire subject is "how much pressure would be considered excessive", with in addition the parameters set within the jurisdiction where the case is being dealt with. JFW | T@lk 05:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand JFW's misgivings about the "popular press"; my citation is a placeholder until I am able to find more substantial and scholarly discussion of the issue. I think any reasonable person will agree that a discussion of this issue as it presents itself in real life (and as it is reported in the "popular press") is, while not totally sufficient or an exhaustive discussion of the issue, certainly preferable to having no citation at all. While I continue to do research in order to find more substantive discussion of the circumstances in question, I invite JFW to add their own citations at their leisure. --newmila (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Additional sources - which hopefully will meet with approval - have been added, and my text restored. --newmila (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The text was true enough, and I wouldn't have removed it just because the source was less than ideal, but I am happy it has been restored with good sources now, thank to the good word of editors. Debresser (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

i'd contrast it with cases of US women hiring killers to resolve their agunah. religion sucks, thats why. Also, religion has no say in a lexicon. it is a study object only. 89.204.138.63 (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)