New York – Halachic Musings: Withholding A Get; The Case Of A Congressman’s Aide

New York – It is an issue in the center of three intersecting imperatives that religious Jews hold precious and dear. It involves our desire to avoid embarrassing headlines concerning Jews acting improperly—chillul Hashem, desecrating G d’s Name. It involves adhering to what our gedolim, the sages of Israel, have to say. And finally, it involves our sensibilities in causing a fellow human being to suffer.

Thus, we cringe when we read in the Jewish Chronicle, “More than 2,000 people have signed a petition calling for a senior aide to a U.S. congressman to grant his wife a religious divorce.” Mr. Aaron Friedman, who works for Michigan Republican Congressman Dave Camp, split up with his wife for good two years ago. But, embroiled in a battle for custody of their daughter, he has so far refused to match their civil divorce with a Jewish one, by withholding the get and leaving her an agunah, a “chained” wife.

As it stands, his wife cannot remarry, and Mr. Friedman has ignored the Manhattan beth din’s “declaration of contempt” against him. Because of Mr. Friedman’s public status, his former wife’s plight has become the subject of a large social media campaign directed at the congressman. Mr. Camp’s Facebook page has been flooded with messages from members of ORA, the Organization for the Resolution of Agunot, prompting him to cancel the open setting of his account.

According to Politico, Washington DC rabbi Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld is to write to the House Ethics Committee claiming that Mr. Friedman is in violation of the code requiring congressional employees to “behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.”

A petition calls on Mr. Camp to “take action and stand up against this abuse.”

“A member of your staff has been abusing his wife, for nearly four years,” the petition states. “His ex-wife is chained to a dead marriage, unable to move on with her life, due to Mr. Friedman’s recalcitrance. It is a pity that, despite your wonderful record on so many issues of importance to the Jewish community, you will become known as the congressman who dismisses domestic abuse as ‘gossip.’”

What should our reaction be? Is there halachic justification for a husband to hold back a get? Is it permitted to do so for financial purposes? Also, if someone is refusing to comply with the terms of a beis din, is it permitted to publicize that no one should have anything to do with him?

There are, of course, two sides to every story. Every situation must be handled on its own merits, and it is wrong for people to categorically always take the side of one gender—regardless of the case. But when one side refuses to come to the negotiating table or is withholding a get after having lost in a court proceeding that they themselves had initiated, things are different. When the refusal to issue a get is done as a retaliatory measure against the wife, then we have entered a darker and more sinister realm of interaction.

As a society, we have become more tolerant and accepting of abominable and repulsive behavior. This is a most unfortunate state of affairs that must be changed. Both the Torah commentaries and halachic sources reflect this idea.

The Chezkuni (Bereishis 3:16) cites a Midrash and writes that if someone is betrothed to a woman and leaves her stuck as an agunah, then he is a denier of the World to Come. Consequently, he loses his share in Olam Ha’Ba. The Baalei HaTosfos cite the same exposition and come to the same conclusion.

There, of course, the state of agunah-ship began at the very beginning of a marriage—upon halachic betrothal. But the idea is the same—these Rishonim hold that the husbands have lost their share in Olam Ha’Ba. Their fate and future no longer lie with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and their grandparents and great-grandparents for generations. Rather, the fate of these husbands lie with the likes of Bilaam and Gechazi.

What if it was the woman’s fault? There is a fascinating Chasam Sofer (Nedarim 29) that even in an extreme case (not the case under discussion here) where a wife sinned with an extramarital affair “Ein lanu leagein osa—we do not make her into an agunah.” He continues that this is obvious and clear.
What should our reaction be when we see it? The Responsa Yeshuas Malko (EH #54) writes, “All of Israel is obligated in trying to help such a woman.” Is the Washington rabbi who wants to write to the House Ethics Committee correct? It would seem so.

Rav Moshe Shternbuch of the Eida HaChareidis in Jerusalem (Teshuvos v’Hanhagos Vol. V #44) writes regarding someone who is refusing to give a get to his wife, it is “permitted and proper to publicize” that no one should have anything to do with him. The Washington rabbi has the Eida HaChareidis on his side.

The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 1:11) rules that it is good to enact laws and stipulations regarding marrying an additional wife (this was according to those that had not adopted the ban of Rabbeinu Gershom on polygamy). The Vilna Gaon explains that the Shulchan Aruch writes this to avoid situations which may cause the husband to make his first wife an agunah.

We can make two observations from this Vilna Gaon. The first is that the notion of husbands making their wives into agunos as a means of retaliation is not new. The second is that steps should be taken to avoid this from coming about.

Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt’l (Igros Moshe YD Vol. IV #15) writes categorically that no one has the right to be me’agein the other party for financial purposes. (Me’agein is the verb form of making someone into an agunah.)

The Shulchan Aruch rules that it is forbidden to judge on the Sabbath (Orech Chaim 339:1). The Rema adds that if someone needs to be punished it is forbidden to place him in jail so that he not run away. The Mishnah Berurah (329:14), written by the saintly Chofetz Chaim, rules that this does not apply to husbands who are refusing to give their wife a get. He writes that one is allowed to put a husband in jail over Shabbos so that he will not run away and will thus be present on motzaei Shabbos to give a get to his wife.

Not one of these sources is denying the right of a husband to present his side of the story to a beis din. What these sources all do, however, is demonstrate that the refusal to come to the table and the withholding of a get to inflict psychological harm or pressure to capitulate in other matters is an abominable form of behavior that causes people to lose their share in the World to Come and justifies jailing them on the Sabbath itself.

The author can be reached at [email protected].