MOIRA SCHNEIDER
Gett refusal is a problem worldwide, Glicksberg told the audience at the talk, held under the auspices of the Kaplan Centre for Jewish Studies at the University of Cape Town. With a PhD in Talmud from Bar Ilan University, Glicksberg came to South Africa five years ago intending to stay for a one-year sabbatical. He was approached by Mizrachi, and has served as rosh kollel and rabbi of the Mizrachi congregation of Johannesburg since 2014. In 2015, he was appointed a dayan of the Beth Din.
“The process would be less traumatic for women if they could bring a female friend or family member to the Beth Din for support,”. Glicksberg said.
Stating that he couldn’t change halacha, which prescribed that three dayanim, a scribe, and two witnesses (all men) be present at the giving of the gett, the dayan said he tried to be “sensitive. I tell her to bring a friend, her mother, her sister. The moment I stop being sensitive, I stop being a dayan.”
Ann Harris, the widow of former Chief Rabbi Cyril Harris, suggested that more use be made of advocates, attorneys, and judges. “They need to understand the nature of the problem, and this involves you talking to groups of them,” she said, addressing Glicksberg.
“We’d like to invite advocates and attorneys, and update them on everything,” the dayan agreed.
Zmira Cohen suggested the presence of a woman rabbinic advisor at the Beth Din. “It’s extremely intimidating for women to appear before all the dayanim,” she said.
On the presence of a toenet rabbanit (a female rabbinical court advocate), Glicksberg said he would raise the matter at the Beth Din. “I don’t have an issue with it. We can do a lot. That’s why communication is important,” he said, pointing out that this was the first time he had appeared at a forum outside of his community and the Beth Din.
The Beth Din is about to appoint a female social worker who is a divorcee. “It’s one of the simple things we can do before we change the halacha,” the dayan said.
Human-rights lawyer Hayley Galgut said Go Getters, a South African gett network established three years ago to guard against gett abuse, had suggested systems the Beth Din could adopt for many years. “Why have we not written up a code of good practice that demystifies the process of getting a gett, and therefore makes it a lot fairer for everyone?” she asked.
“It should be done,” agreed the dayan. “We did it with monetary issues.
Raising the issue of the trauma women go through during the gett process, Galgut insisted that the extortion of money from women “has to stop”.
In his presentation, Glicksberg stated that according to the Torah, the husband has to give the gett. However, over the past 1 000 years, the situation between husband and wife has become similar in that a husband cannot give a gett without the consent of his wife.
“If the wife doesn’t want to accept it, there’s no divorce,” he said. In fact, in Israel today there were more refusers among women than men.
There are presently two cases before the Beth Din, both involving women refusers. Go Getters is assisting them.
In Israel, there is disparity between women’s organisations and the chief rabbinate on the number of gett refusers as there is no agreed definition of what constitutes gett refusal, Glicksberg said. “In South Africa there’s no difference because we work together, that’s part of our success. We know about cases from Go Getters. It’s welcome at the Beth Din, as opposed to [the situation in] Israel.”
Praising Go Getters, he said, “It can do things we can’t do, and we can do things it can’t do.”
Following lobbying by former Chief Rabbi Harris, parliament in 1996 amended the Divorce Act of 1979. Glicksberg said that because of this, judges now have the discretion not to grant a civil divorce unless the gett has been given. This “dramatically reduced” the cases of gett refusal in South Africa.
Describing the development as an “amazing success of the chief rabbi and Beth Din”, Glicksberg mentioned that letters had been received from several countries stating, “You managed to do something we never dreamed of.”
Referring to a case in the early 2000s, Glicksberg said that the Beth Din had decided to put the husband concerned in cherem (to ex-communicate him) because he hadn’t followed its rulings on maintenance and custody which he was halachically bound to do. The individual then took the matter to the Gauteng High Court, arguing that in cherem was a violation of his human rights.
Agreeing with the legal advice given to the Beth Din, the judge ruled that the Jewish community was akin to a private club, and its members had to respect its laws. He ruled that in cherem was not a violation of human rights, rather about being part of a club. The man then appealed, and five judges gave the same ruling.
“Most of the time we don’t need to do it, but this case gave the Beth Din the power to use the tool of excommunication,” the dayan said. “We’re trying to use a different approach.
“The mutual respect we have with the women’s organisations is a big help. You don’t find it elsewhere. We hope to strengthen these relationships.
“We learn from different Batei Din around the world, but they can also learn from us.”
In addition, “You always find a rabbi in South Africa who knows the family. People still respect rabbis here,” he quipped.
Turning to a halachic prenuptial agreement that was aimed at abolishing gett refusal, the dayan expressed his disappointment that it wasn’t being implemented because of legal advice that it might be unenforceable.
“At the moment, we can’t find a solution. We wanted to say that rabbis can’t conduct weddings without the prenup, but we’re not going to do it if it can’t be enforced. We’re very disappointed. We need to think of another solution.”
