From the above, we can conclude that the American reality, where the rabbinical court has no state powers, may eventually justify the acceptance of the notion of civil divorce practised there. But rabbinical judges argue that in Israel the legal status of the rabbinical court has a halakhic and moral weight. It is not appropriate to reduce your legal jurisdiction, challenge divorce applications and decide whether they are accepted or rejected. It is not fair to force a get when a rabbinical judge thinks differently, and thus raise the specter of a forced get. And it is not fair to accept an agreement that radically changes the way Jewish law has worked over the centuries, thus creating the ability to break up the family. These three aspects are intertwined. This fundamental distinction stems from the different legal reality between Israel and the United States, but it is not only theoretical. Rabbinical judges in Israel regard the agreement as a halachic and moral threat and as a document that violates the status of the rabbinical court, and therefore their attitude on this subject is negative. The distinction between Israel and the diaspora is also evident in the testimony of other rabbinical judges, and is largely explained by the difference between the legal status of rabbinical courts in the two communities. This is clear from the words of Rabbi Dichovsky, who proposed a more conservative marriage arrangement in late 2012 than Beth Din of America (he demanded a rabbinical court ruling for the imposition of $2,000 a month in spousal support to apply during the separation), but found that it was applicable to the diaspora.
where the rabbinical court has no governmental power and the power of coercion. Footnote 39 And this is evident in the words of Rabbi Yaakov Ariel, who rejected the agreements in Israel and distinguished between him and the United States: “In the U[nited] S[tates], there have been agreements for many years, but Judge Rabbi Uriel Lavi asserts that the rabbinical court manages to expedite divorce more than all other agreements.” Footnote 40 In recent years, considerable efforts have been made to convince American Orthodox couples, especially modern ones, to sign a standard agreement guaranteeing that the woman receives a reception in the event of separation. Footnote 10 The common agreement is that of the Beth Din of America, Footnote 11, which I refer to in this article (the “American Agreement”). The content and objectives of the agreement are described by the Beth Din of America. Footnote 12 In short, the agreement requires the parties to appear in court and requires the husband to pay his wife the spouse`s assistance to the tune of $150 per day, from the day of separation until the grant of chance (unless the wife herself refuses to cooperate with the Beth Din of America). The purpose of the agreement is to put considerable financial pressure on the husband to get him to divorce. The halachische image shows that this agreement is valid lechatchilah, or at least bediavad, and it seems that this time of distress, and it is appropriate to decide for this way lechatchilah. Footnote 73 Although this agreement is one-sided and only protects the woman in the case of a recalcitrant husband, it addresses the majority of cases where igun [chained wife] falls. Would a significant increase in the number of marriage contract signatories, who also use spousal support as an instrument to put pressure on the recalcitrant husband, cause a similar phenomenon of change of position of the rabbinical court? Rabbi Lavi was also cautious in stressing in his articles that his opposition to the agreement was not directed against America, although there is no doubt that the problems identified in the mutual respect agreement are also included in the U.S. agreement.