Posted on May 23, 2025
“Because I’m committed both to freedom of marriage and to change from within the halakha, my responsibility to offer solutions is greater. And I have faith in the halakha’s ability to offer solutions.”
I’m Maor (Amitei Bronfman 2006). Originally from Ma’ale Adumim, I live in Tel Aviv with my partner Guy and our sons, Meishar and Nov. I’m a lawyer, and for the past eight years, I’ve worked at Mavoi Satum (“dead end”), an NGO that provides legal and emotional support to agunot—women who, under traditional Jewish law (halakha), are unable to remarry because their spouse is either unable or unwilling to grant them a divorce (get). My work focuses on advocating for halakhic and legal solutions to reform the system. Recently, I began a PhD in Jewish law at Bar-Ilan University, focusing on how rabbinical courts handle cases of get refusal.
The first aguna I encountered was Neta (a pseudonym), a woman with two toddlers who had converted to Judaism in order to marry. The issue of agunot had concerned me since I was a teenager, and when I got married, I did everything I could to ensure my wedding reflected my values—including signing a prenuptial agreement to prevent aginut. Although I believed I was familiar with the problem, Neta’s case shook me deeply. The rabbinical court not only failed to actively assist her; it rejected her divorce claim and closed the case. In other words, it ruled that she simply was not entitled to a divorce. And that was that. It was her problem.
While most cases of aginut today stem from get refusal, a much rarer and more complex form arises when a get simply cannot be given because one spouse is missing, incapacitated, or legally unable to consent. This form of aginut becomes tragically more relevant in times of war.
In the case of the current war, it’s still early days and we’re not seeing these cases yet. Many women are either in mourning or still hoping their husbands will return—hostages, missing soldiers, men with severe injuries and trauma. It will take a few years before these women come forward seeking permission (heter) to remarry. There will be hostages who do not return, and it will remain unclear whether they are alive or dead. In some of these cases, resolution will be nearly impossible.
Brain injuries, for instance, present a unique challenge that rabbinical courts often lack the tools to resolve. In recent years, several medical cases have emerged where these courts could offer no solution. In two such instances, the women were only released from their marriages after their husbands’ deaths. From the court’s perspective, there was virtually nothing to do but wait. The “Aguna from Safed” case stands as a notable exception, where the regional rabbinical court ruled in the woman’s favor through remarkable halakhic creativity. This ruling came despite the adamant opposition of Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef who, rather than supporting substantive halakhic solutions, focused instead on a theological debate regarding whether she was permitted to pray for the death of her husband.
These are the kinds of cases we’ll be confronting in the coming years—and they will be incredibly difficult. Unlike get refusal, which courts can sometimes overcome through sanctions, these cases are almost impossible to resolve without prior agreements. As a religious woman who takes halakha seriously, I understand the court’s limitations. But that’s exactly why we must act in advance. My critique is this: make sure those agreements are signed in advance. Let’s get ahead of the problem.
The current government is actively working to strengthen the state’s religious character. One of the more blatant examples is the attempt to expand the Rabbinical Court’s authority. Three bills are currently pending, with one particularly concerning proposal. This bill would grant the Rabbinical Court jurisdiction over child support—an authority it already claims but which the Supreme Court currently blocks. We firmly support the Supreme Court’s position that the Rabbinical Court’s authority should be limited strictly to divorce proceedings. Child support extortion represents one of the most common issues we encounter. Ironically, on this matter, we find ourselves in an unusual alliance with men’s rights groups. While civil courts are progressing toward greater gender equality, the Rabbinical Court adheres to outdated norms, such as placing child support obligations mainly on fathers.
The second bill proposes allowing the Rabbinical Court to arbitrate civil disputes—matters that today can only be handled in civil courts—’by consent.’ But we have serious concerns about what ‘consent’ really means in this context. We’re following these proposals closely and working hard to stop them.
The third bill, concerning religious control over trusts and endowments, is currently the least threatening. Considered together, however, these bills raise a fundamental question: How can a government pushing judicial reform in the name of legislative authority simultaneously expand the unchecked power of religious courts?
Being a religious woman is central to why this issue matters so deeply to me. Of all the challenges at the intersection of religion, feminism, and the state, this one stands out as a profound violation of basic human rights. While some issues remain specific to the religious sector and therefore ‘my problem,’ the halakhic system governing marriage and divorce has been imposed on the broader Israeli society. And while I acknowledge that issues like security and the economy may demand more immediate attention, if I accept the status quo—if I say this isn’t urgent enough—I become complicit in forcing others to remain trapped in situations where they cannot obtain divorces. Because I’m committed both to freedom of marriage and to change from within the halakha, my responsibility to offer solutions is greater. And I have faith in the halakha’s ability to offer solutions.
Over the past few decades, we’ve seen dramatic progress. Rabbinical courts now recognize grounds for divorce they once rejected. In essence, they’ve found a way to give halakhic names and justifications to ideas that are essentially Western—translating modern values into a halakhic framework. The paradox is striking: more women are making the choice to leave unhappy marriages because they can—a social gain that’s also expanded the problem. Halakha hasn’t fully caught up, but it’s evolving faster than ever. We’re now at the most progressive halakhic moment on this issue since Maimonides. This shift resulted directly from relentless pressure from organizations like ours, legal advocates, journalists, and public activism. We’re not there yet, but the change within halakha is real—and it gives me hope that in a generation or two, we can solve this.
To understand the issue of agunot today, it’s crucial to recognize that in Israel, marriage and divorce are governed solely by religious law, through state-recognized religious institutions. For Jews, this means all marriages and divorces must follow halakha under the authority of the Chief Rabbinate and Rabbinical Courts.
Next, we need to understand that a get (Jewish divorce) is a voluntary legal act. It cannot be issued on behalf of someone who is missing, incapacitated, or legally incompetent. As a result, even if the marital relationship has clearly ended, the marriage remains legally binding unless both parties actively consent to dissolve it. The only alternative is to prove the marriage was invalid from the start—a rare and complex legal path.
This is the less common form of aginut. More common today is get refusal (sarvanut get), where one spouse seeks a divorce, and the other refuses or imposes conditions. While halakha requires mutual consent to both enter and exit a marriage, there’s a critical gender distinction. Because a man’s consent is required by Torah law (דאורייתא), while a woman’s consent stems only from later rabbinic enactments (תקנה), it is halakhically much harder to override a husband’s refusal to give a get than a wife’s refusal to receive one. The consequences of aginut are significantly harsher for women. Most notably, without a get, a woman cannot remarry under Jewish law—and therefore under Israeli law—and if she were to enter a new relationship and have children, they would be considered mamzerim (children with a halakhic status of illegitimacy). These children face lifelong marriage restrictions under Jewish law. Even in largely secular Israeli society, mamzerut carries real stigma. Many women say, “Even if I don’t believe in it, I can’t pass this burden to my child in a society where others do.” So, ultimately, while aginut is fundamentally about the right to divorce, the issue of gender cannot be ignored.
The Rabbinical Court in Israel claims that get refusal is rare and that the court works tirelessly to resolve cases. But much of the problem unfolds outside the courtroom, during negotiations. A man might say, “I’ll agree to divorce—if you give me three-quarters of the apartment.” Knowing no one will intervene, she concedes. They then appear in court “in agreement.”
Still, a significant portion of get refusal happens inside the courtroom. The issue lies in how the court defines it: the court only counts cases as get refusal when it has already ruled that a get is warranted from a halakhic point of view, and the spouse refuses. Women who “just” want a divorce—without halakhic justification, according to the court—don’t count.
We estimate there are likely thousands of cases of mesoravot get. In a recent survey, one-fifth of those who divorced in the past five years reported experiencing get refusal.
The problem is, Israelis think this is not a problem that concerns them. Couples assume that by marrying abroad or through alternative ceremonies, they’ve avoided the issue. But when it comes to divorce, almost all married Jewish couples must still go through the Rabbinical Court. And those who marry religiously rarely consider what the lack of separation between religion and state will mean if they ever need to part ways.
______________________________
Many thanks to Lisa Shefer (Amitei Bronfman ’04) for her crucial help in writing this!
