In each generation since the institution of the laws of divorce, there has existed countless tales of husbands who have deserted their wives without issuing them a get. This is problematic for many reasons in addition to the fact that without the issuance of a get, a civil or religious divorce is not valid according to Jewish law. If a woman's husband has deserted her, is insane, missing (e.g., kidnapped, missing in action during a war), or is presumed dead but without verification, a woman is left in an immobilized state for she has no way to divorce her husband or remarry; a get is a prerequisite for both. A woman in such a state is called an agunah ["chained woman," or "anchored wife"]. The only way an agunah can remarry is through the issuance of a get by her husband or through her husband's confirmed death. Also, evidence of a husband's death must be direct; circumstantial evidence is not sufficient according to Jewish law.

With regards to confirming the death of a wife's husband to prevent her from becoming an agunah, Jewish law is a bit more lenient than in other categories of litigation in that testimony will be permitted from only one witness (normally two male witnesses are required in matters of Jewish law), as well as of persons who are usually ineligible to be witnesses, such as a woman, a minor, the words heard in passing in the conversation of non-Jews, and non-Jews themselves whose testimony to the husband's death is spontaneous and without the intention to act as a witness on behalf of an agunah. Even the wife herself may testify as to witnessing herself the confirmed death of her husband, pending that she lived in harmony with her first husband (otherwise, she may be motivated to lie about her husband's death to be rid of him and free to remarry), and her husband's disappearance was not tied to wartime activities. This leniency is allowed in Jewish law when dealing with the issue of the agunah, since a man who has died is gone for good, and if there is no other testimony to his death, no new evidence is likely to arise. Only five women are invalid witnesses in agunah cases as to the death of the wife's husband, all on the husband's side: (1) his mother; (2) his sister; (3) his second wife; (4) his wife by levirate marriage; and (5) his daughter by another wife. It is presumed that these witnesses may be hostile towards the agunah, such as plotting to get rid of her, hence their testimony would be suspect. Of course, such plotting is more theoretical than realistic, but the law to exclude them as witnesses is meant to protect an agunah. In any event, if no valid witness can confirm the death of a wife's husband, yet he is missing or his whereabouts are unknown, a Jewish wife will be considered an agunah; without information about her husband, she may remain an agunah indefinitely, and therefore simply cannot remarry until valid information comes forth.

This restriction against remarriage also applies in cases of Jewish wives who are civilly divorced, but not religiously divorced under Jewish law as stated earlier. Although it is obviously known that the husbands of these wives are alive, the fact that they either have not granted their wives a get or are refusing to grant their wives a get leaves these women unable to remarry, for they are still maritally "chained" to their husbands. The marital bonds of these women are still in tact according to Jewish law, hence, they are in a state of immobility in that they cannot validly remarry under Jewish law. This phenomenon is likely more common in today's modern world, especially in America, than a situation of unknown whereabouts of a wife's husband. It may even be argued that the case of the recalcitrant husband who refuses to religiously free his wife from her marital ties is more psychologically abusive to an agunah than the case of a missing husband and the lack of information as to his whereabouts. This point can be seen when looking at many of the articles in the professional literature that have addressed Jewish divorce law. The following quotes are some examples:

"Throughout the long history of Jewish law, no problem has constituted a greater challenge to basic equity than that of the agunah, the woman who is unable to remarry due to the legal inability to terminate her present marriage" [Washofsky, M. (1981). The recalcitrant husband: The problem of definition. Jewish Law Annual, 4, 144-166].

"The fate of the agunah is perhaps the most tragic consequence of the laws of marriage and divorce" [Biale, R. (1984). Women and Jewish law: An exploration of women's issues in Halakhic sources. New York: Schocken Books].

"No other question has vexed modern students of Jewish law more than the question of the agunah or "bound wife" - that is, the woman who is still legally tied to an absent husband" [Novak, D. (1974). Law and theology in Judaism. New York" KTAV Publishing House].

"One cannot fail to be deeply sympathetic to the sorrowful plight of the agunah (one who is "tied") under Jewish religious law" [Pfeffer, L., & Pfeffer, A. (1989). The Agunah in American secular law. Journal of Church and State, 31, 487-525].

The following discussion demonstrates the abuse that results in the case of the recalcitrant spouse.

The Recalcitrant Spouse

In today's world, Jewish men can easily withhold a get in divorce cases. Although a civil court may grant Jewish couples a divorce, Jewish law regards the couple to still be married. Hence, husbands can keep their wives at their mercy and under their control by simply refusing to issue them a get; indeed, a severe form of psychological abuse. For instance, husbands may use the threat of withholding a get as bargaining power to obtain certain benefits in divorce cases, such as financial gains or certain custody arrangements. A husband may ". . . vengefully and strategically use this dramatically superior bargaining power in negotiating a favorable property settlement or custody settlement with his wife" [Fox, B. N., & Krasnow, H. C. (1988, January). Secular solutions to obtaining a Jewish divorce. Illinois Bar Journal, pp. 274-278, 280]. This type of situation occurs when a husband makes it entirely clear to his wife that he will not cooperate in the executing and delivering of a get until his wife complies with his specific demands [A get-extorted agreement presents a strong case for coercion, and a wife may be able to seek relief under the law for her husband's unfair bargaining in the divorce. However, it may be difficult to prove that coercion took place, so it may be best for a Jewish wife consult with a lawyer before agreeing to her husband's blackmail]. If wives do not comply with their husbands' requests, husbands can literally keep their wives' marital ties intact for indefinite periods of time (or at least until they comply with their wishes). This situation forces the Jewish woman who believes in and wants to follow Jewish religious law to be faced with the impossible choice of either giving into her blackmailing husband or becoming an agunah. Although some women stand their ground, many simply choose to give in so that they can move on with their life. In any event, it should be clear here that whether or not a Jewish wife accepts her husband's demands and is issued a get, she is subjected to severe psychological abuse. This situation inflicts severe wounds on a Jewish wife, and certainly may leave permanent scars.

Is there ever a reason for Jewish husbands to withhold a get in Jewish divorce? Although the answer to this question may appear to be an obvious "no", the present author believes there may be two: (1) in certain cases it may be appropriate to make sure that the civil divorce is actually complete before issuing a get; and (2) to simply make sure that the relationship, hence marriage, is really over. With regards to the first reason, one may wait to grant a get to first make sure that all the specifics of the civil aspect of divorce have been agreed upon and finalized to avoid later problems; it is likely that this advice would stem from the lawyer working on the husband's behalf [Of course, this reason for withholding a get would only work for honest couples, where the husband would not later trick his wife and become recalcitrant after the civil divorce is complete. Moreover, in most Jewish divorce cases, the civil divorce is completed first, and then the religious divorce takes place under the advisement of rabbis trained in Jewish divorce]. With regards to the second reason, one may wish to make sure that the couple has, indeed, decided to divorce from one another (i.e., determine that reconciliation is no longer possible). In some cases in Jewish law, there is no possibility of remarriage once a couple divorces [The most profound example of this is the kohen, a member of the priestly tribe in Jewish culture, who is not allowed to marry a divorcée, even his own former wife. Hence, a kohen would definitely want to make sure that his relationship has ended before divorcing, for once divorced he can never remarry his ex-wife]. For instance, if a couple divorced, remarried, and then they both divorced their second spouses, they could not then go ahead and remarry each other, for this is forbidden under Jewish law. Hence, withholding a get in these cases may be understandable. Even so, the reality remains that the withholding of a get is unethical if it is not correctly justified, and it is extremely difficult to ever justify withholding a get any longer than absolutely necessary (assuming that the withholding of a particular get is justifiable in the first place).

This problem of husbands refusing to give their wives a get is a widespread phenomenon today, and exists wherever Jews reside in the world. For example, the number of agunot [plural of agunah] in New York State is estimated to be as high as 15,000 [Berkowitz, A. (1987). The prisoners of divorce. Lilith, 18, 18-23], although some estimates of the number of agunot in New York have been as high as 150,000 [Breitowitz, I. A. (1993). Between civil and religious law: The plight of the agunah in American society. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press]. There are enough publicly reported incidents of agunot to permit the inference that there are many more unpublicized cases. Astoundingly, in Israel there exist many cases where husbands choose to remain in the jail to which the Jewish courts have sentenced them for refusing to issue a get to their wives rather than freeing them of their marital bonds [In ancient times, the bet din ["Jewish court of law"] was allowed to use extreme force, if necessary, to cause a recalcitrant husband to issue his wife a get. This usually involved a pack of men beating the man continuously until he agreed to issue a get. If he died during the beatings, his wife was declared a widow and was allowed to remarry, since widowhood allows women to remarry. This phenomenon is an excellent example of the additional "abuse" that often occurred in Jewish divorce cases of the past]. This last point demonstrates that no matter where Jewish women live, they are always at the mercy of their husbands to be issued a get in divorce cases.

However, it should be noted that this problem has a reciprocal element. Jewish wives can temporarily or permanently refuse to accept a get from their husbands (a matriarchal element of the divorce process). They may blackmail their husbands just like their husbands may blackmail them. This may cause an immense amount of psychological and financial turmoil for husbands. If husbands are not religiously divorced, they too cannot remarry under rabbinical law [Such men could remarry under Biblical law, since the Bible allows men to have more than one wife, but rabbinical law forbids polygamy, and most religious Jews in the world today follow rabbinical law]. Moreover, if husbands want a divorce but are refused one by their wives, they must still fulfill their financial obligations to their wives (until a religious divorce has occurred). Although this scenario is probably less likely to occur than husbands refusing to issue a get to their wives, the possibility exists that wives can psychologically abuse their husbands. In any event, it should still be clear that the Jewish husband has much more power to abuse his wife than a Jewish wife has to abuse her husband when it comes to divorce.

This power differential can be seen more clearly by looking at the following phenomenon. If a wife refuses to accept a divorce from her husband, and that husband decides to go ahead and remarry anyway without divorcing his wife, he is not guilty of adultery, but rather polygamy, a much less serious offense in Jewish law. Although Rabbenu Gershom, a famous Jewish sage, forbid polygamous marriages in the eleventh century (i.e., rabbinical law forbids polygamy), it is still permitted under Biblical law. As a result, a husband who remarries without first divorcing is not guilty of adultery (but only the violation of a rabbinic prohibition), and any children that may result from such a union are not considered mamzerim ["illegitimate children"] [It is assumed here that the husband's remarriage is to a single woman. Certainly, if his remarriage is to a "married" woman who has not obtained a get from her husband, he would be in an adulterous relationship and the children that would result from the union would then be considered mamzerim ("illegitimate")]. A mamzer, or illegitimate child, is severely stigmatized in Jewish law, and it may be argued that knowingly producing a mamzer is an indirect form of child abuse. The reason that a man can have a child with another (single) women without making that child a mamzer is because a mamzer is, by definition, the product of a sexual relationship between a man and a "forbidden" woman; the Torah [Five Books of Moses] does not speak about "forbidden" men. Without question, we have before us a double-standard in Jewish law, with women having far less power and control over their situations, for if a woman were to go ahead and remarry without first divorcing, she would be guilty of adultery, one of the most severe offenses in Jewish law, and the children that would result from her "adulterous" union would be mamzerim, hence illegitimate. This point alone demonstrates how Jewish law in cases of divorce and remarriage may create an abusive situation for women when a recalcitrant husband refuses to grant his wife a religious divorce.

Equally important to these points is the fact that Jewish rabbinical law has ruled that in cases where the wife has abandoned the husband, the husband is permitted to remarry without issuing his wife a get. This declaration was brought down by the eleventh century Jewish sage, Rabbenu Gershom, who also prohibited polygamy as mentioned above. Since the disintegration of the marriage resulted from the wife's decision to abandon her husband rather than accepting a divorce from him, it would, in the absence of a Biblical prohibition against polygamy, be inequitable to bar the husband from marrying another wife by reason of rabbinic legislation. However, this is only allowed provided that the husband obtains the signatures of one-hundred rabbis from three different jurisdictions approving that the remarriage is factually justified. This aspect of Jewish law displays an obvious double standard, in that a husband can remarry if his wife abandons him, while a wife whose husband has abandoned her cannot. Clearly, there exists the potential for abuse within Jewish marriage and divorce.

Many religious women leave Judaism because they feel that it offers no resolve in their plight as agunot [Aiken, L. (1992). To be a Jewish woman. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, Inc.]. Since wives may be rendered agunot for indefinite periods of time after civil divorces, many formerly religious women choose to simply go ahead and remarry civilly without receiving a get from their husband. This is problematic for three reasons: (1) these women have committed adultery because they are still bonded maritally by religious law to their ex-spouses for failure to obtain a valid divorce as required by Jewish law; (2) any child that arises from a union between a woman married according to Jewish law and someone other than her religious husband becomes a mamzer ["illegitimate child"]; and (3) a pre-get relationship of a "married" woman and another man cannot be solemnized after a get is granted by an agunah's husband because a once adulterous relationship cannot later become a legal marital relationship according to Jewish law. It is this third point that is relevant here in the discussion. A Jewish woman and her adulterous partner are not allowed to marry after the adulterer divorces her husband. Said another way, since the two individuals violated religious law initially, Jewish law does not permit them to each other after the woman obtains a get from her husband, even though the once adulterous relationship would now appear to be allowed since it would no longer be adultery if continued (figuratively speaking), for the woman obtained a get. No matter how we look at this situation, the important point to take from Jewish law is how essential it is that a "married" Jewish woman who is civilly divorced and her new love interest (assumed to be a Jewish man) wait until she obtains a get before commencing their relationship. Failure to do so creates the likelihood that a controversial and abusive situation will develop. This point of Jewish law is yet another example of the abuse and difficulties that may arise for the wife of a recalcitrant husband post civil divorce, and the level of self-abuse that the wife may inflict upon herself if she does not obtain a get before proceeding into a new relationship.

Bibliography

Agnon, S. Y. (1970). "The Doctor's Divorce." In N. N. Glatzer (Ed.), Twenty-one stories -- S. Y. Agnon (pp. 135-161). New York: Schocken.

"Agunah impasse" (1985, January). Young Israel Viewpoint, p. 2.

Aiken, L. (1992). To be a Jewish woman. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, Inc.

Amram, D. W. (1968). The Jewish Law of Divorce. New York: Hermon Press.

Anderson, A. A. (1988). Law in old Israel: Laws concerning adultery. In B. Lindars (Ed.), Law and religion: Essays on the place of the law in Israel and early Christianity by members of the Ehrhardt Seminar of Manchester University (pp. 13-19). Cambridge, Great Britain: James Clarke & Co.

Aronson, D. (1951). "Kedat Moshe Veyisrael". Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly of America, pp. 120-140.

Baker, A. (1993). The Jewish woman in contemporary society: Transitions and traditions. New York: Macmillan.

Baker, M. (1995). The voice of the deserted Jewish woman, 1867-1870. Jewish Social Studies, 2, 98-123.

Bekker, K. (1995, Summer). Rally: National day for Agunah rights. Lilith, 20(2), 7, 18.

Berkovits, E. (1990). Jewish women in time and Torah. Hoboken, NJ: KTAV Publishing House.

Berkovitz, B. (1989, April 21). Jewish divorce laws. New Law Journal, 139, 551-553.

Berkowitz, A. (1987). The prisoners of divorce. Lilith, 18, 18-23.

Berman, W. H. (1988). The role of attachment in the post-divorce experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 496-503.

Biale, R. (1984). Women and Jewish law: An exploration of women's issues in Halakhic sources. New York: Schocken Books.

Bleich, J. D. (1984). A suggested antenuptial agreement: A proposal in wake of Avitzur. Journal of HaLacha and Contemporary Society, 7, 25-41.

Bleich, J. D. (1977). Contemporary Halakhic problems. New York: KTAV Publishing House/Yeshiva University Press.

Bleich, J. D. (1983). Contemporary Halakhic problems: Volume II. New York: KTAV Publishing House/Yeshiva University Press.

Bleich, J. D. (1981). Modern-day agunot: A proposed remedy. Jewish Law Annual, 4, 167-187.

Bleich, J. D. (1982). Survey of recent Halakhic periodical literature: Indirect coercion in compelling a get. Tradition, 20(2), 155-159.

Bleich, J. D. (1986). Survey of recent Halakhic periodical literature: The device of the "Sages of Spain" as a solution to the problem of the modern-day Agunah. Tradition, 22(3), 77-87.

Blumenthal, A. H. (1977). The status of women in Jewish law. Conservative Judaism, 31(3), 24-40.

B'nai Brith Women of Canada (1993). Get and the Agunah: Facts about Jewish divorce. Canada: B'nai Brith Women of Canada.

Bonner, N. (1996, January 12). Neighbor's divorce problem results in former Milwaukeean's new book. Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle, XIX (2), 5.

Brayer, M. M. (1968). The role of Jewish law pertaining to the Jewish family, Jewish marriage and divorce. In J. Freid (Ed.), Jews and divorce (pp. 1-43). New York: KTAV Publishing House.

Breitowitz, I. (1992). The plight of the Agunah: A study in HaLacha, contract, and the first amendment. Maryland Law Review, 51, 312-421.

Breitowitz, I. A. (1993). Between civil and religious law: The plight of the agunah in American society. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Brodbar-Nemzer, J. Y. (1986). Divorce and group commitment: The case of the Jews. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 329-340.

Bulka, R. P. (1993-94, Winter). Jewish divorce ethics. Jewish Spectator, 58(3), 11-16.

Bulka, R. P. (1989). The dynamics of Jewish marriage. Journal of Psychology and Judaism, 13, 73-86.

Brodbar-Nemzer, J. Y. (1984). Divorce in the Jewish community: The impact of Jewish commitment. Journal of Jewish Communal Service, 61, 150-159.

Carmody, D. L. (1984). Women in modern Judaism. Horizons, 11, 28-41.

Chigier, M. (1981). Ruminations over the Agunah problem. Jewish Law Annual, 4, 207-225.

Cobin, D. M. (1986). Jewish divorce and the recalcitrant husband - Refusal to give a Get as Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Journal of Law and Religion, 4, 405-430.

Cohen, D. (199?). The divorced woman: Toward a new ritual. Conservative Judaism, 44, 62-68.

Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly (1968). T'nai B'kiddushin. ". Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly of America, pp. 229-241.

"Current responsa, decisions of bate din, and rabbinical literature: Indirect coercion in compelling a ge" (1985). Jewish Law Annual, 5, 65-71.

"Current responsa, decisions of bate din, and rabbinical literature: Refusal to grant a religious divorce" (1978). Jewish Law Annual, 1, 179-183..

Dick, J. (1983). Is an agreement to deliver or accept a Get in the event of a civil divorce Halakhically feasible? Tradition, 21(2), 91-106.

Dorff, E. N., & Rosett, A. (1988). A living tree: The roots and growth of Jewish law. New York: State University of New York Press.

Eisenstein, I. (1983). A new approach to Jewish divorce. Journal of Divorce, 6, 85-90.

Ellinson, G. (1973). Civil marriage in Israel: Halakhic and social implications. Tradition, 13, 24-34.

Epstein, L. M. (1930). A solution to the Agunah problem. Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly of America, pp. 83-90.

Epstein, L. M. (1935). Adjustment of the Jewish marriage laws to present-day conditions. Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly of America, pp. 227-235.

Epstein, L. M. (1973). The Jewish marriage contract: A study in the status of the woman in Jewish law. New York: Arno Press.

Falk, Z. (1973-74). Reflections on the case of Mamzerut. Immanuel, No. 3, 94-96.

Feldman, D. M. (1972). Woman's role and Jewish law. Conservative Judaism, 26(4), 29-39.

Feldman, M. (1989-90). Jewish women and secular courts: Helping a Jewish woman obtain a Get. Berkeley Women's Law Journal, 5, 139-169.

Fishman, S. B. (1993). A breath of life: Feminism in the American Jewish community. New York: Free Press.

Fortuna, J. J. (1984). Marriage, divorce, marriage: Catholic style. Jewish Social Work Forum, 20, 28-39.

Fox, B. N., & Krasnow, H. C. (1988, January). Secular solutions to obtaining a Jewish divorce. Illinois Bar Journal, pp. 274-278, 280.

Frazer, B. (1984). Avitzur v. Avitzur: Jewish divorce and the First Amendment. Rutgers Law Review, 36, 887-914.

Friedell, S. F. (1985). Jewish divorce in American courts - The New York experience. Jewish Law Association Studies, 1, 25-28.

Friedman, D. (1984). The status of non-Halachic marriage. Journal of HaLacha and Contemporary Society, 8, 118-128.

Friedman, T. (1974). Marriage and divorce. Judaism, 23, 235-240.

Gartner, T. (1985). Problems of a forced get. Journal of HaLacha and Contemporary Society, 9, 118-142.

Glenn, H. P. (1980). Where heavens meet: The compelling of religious divorces. American Journal of Comparative Law, 28, 1-38.

Glick, S. D. (1992-93). The Agunah in the American legal system: Problems and solutions. University of Louisville Journal of Family Law, 31, 885-915.

Goldberg, N. (1968). The Jewish attitude toward divorce. . In J. Freid (Ed.), Jews and divorce (pp. 44-90). New York: KTAV Publishing House.

Goldston, R. B. (1993, Spring). Separating: A Havdalah ritual for when a marriage comes apart. Lilith, 18(2), 28-29.

Gordis, D. H. (1993). Marriage: Judaism's "other covenantal relationship. In R. M. Geffen (Ed.), Celebration and renewal: Rites of passage in Judaism (pp. 90-131). Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.

Gordis, R. (1979). A dynamic Halakhah: Principles and procedures of Jewish law. Judaism, 28, 263-282.

Gordis, R. (1974). Love, marriage, and business in the Book of Ruth: A chapter in Hebrew customary law. In H. N. Bream, R. D. Heim, & C. A. Moore (Eds.), A light unto my path: Old Testament studies in honor of Jacob M. Myers (pp. 241-264). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Gordis, R. (1984). On adultery in Biblical and Babylonian Law - A note. Judaism, 33, 210-211.

Gordis, R. (1953). The Jewish concept of marriage. Judaism, 2, 225-238.

Gordon, L. H., & Gordon, M. (1984). A format for an ethical and emotional divorce. Journal of Pastoral Care, 38, 288-293.

Grade, C. (1974). The Agunah. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merill Co.

Greenberg, B. (1992, Summer). Feminism within Orthodoxy: A revolution of small signs. Lilith, 17(3), 11-17.

Greenberg, B. (1977). Jewish divorce law: If we must part, let us part as equals. Lilith, 1, 26-29.

Greenberg, B. (1991). The feminist revolution in Orthodox Judaism in America. In M. Shapiro (Ed.), Divisions between traditionalism and liberalism in the American Jewish community: Cleft or Chasm (pp. 55-78). Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellon.

Greenberg, B. (1985). Marriage in the Jewish tradition. Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 22, 3-20.

Greenberg, S. (1970). And he writes her a bill of divorcement. Conservative Judaism, 24, 75-141.

Grossman, N. (1993, Summer). Women unbound: Breaking the chains of Jewish divorce law. Lilith, 18(3), 8-12.

Hagy, J. W. (1989). Her "scandalous behavior": A Jewish divorce in Charleston, South Carolina, 1788. American Jewish Archives, 41, 185-198.

Hardin, J. A. (1988). Religious postmarital dispute resolution: Jewish marriage contracts and civil courts. Ohio State Journal of Dispute Resolution, 4, 97-106.

Haut, I. H. (1977). A problem in Jewish divorce law: An analysis and some suggestions. Tradition, 16(3), 29-49.

Haut, I. H. (1983). Divorce in Jewish law and life. New York: Sepher-Hermon Press.

Haut, I. H. (1993). "The altar weeps": Divorce in Jewish law. In R. M. Geffen (Ed.), Celebration and renewal: Rites of passage in Judaism (pp. 151-166). Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.

Higger, M. (1950). The Agunah problem again: A new suggestion. Conservative Judaism, 7, 28-29.

Higger, M. (195?). Toward a solution of the Agunah problem. Conservative Judaism, vol. ??, 6-15.

Hollander, V. (1990, Summer). The new, improved Jewish divorce: Hers/His. Lilith, 15(3), 20-21.

"Jewish court cases" (1992, April 29). Christian Century, 109, 449-450.

Joseph, N. B. (1994, Sept.). Freeing the Agunot by amending the law. Ecumenism, No. 115, 18-21.

Kalir, J. (1982). The woman in Judaism. In Festschrift in honor of Dr. Morton C. Fierman (pp. 221-234). Fullerton, CA: California State University, Department of Religious Studies.

Kayfetz, B. (1986). Canadian law eases halachic divorce (get) for Jewish women. Patterns of Prejudice, 20(2), 37-39.

Kirschner, R. (1985). Rabbinic responsa of the Holocaust era. New York: Schocken.

Kravetz, J. (1968). Judaism as it confronts the new morality in regard to divorce. . In J. Freid (Ed.), Jews and divorce (pp. 149-157). New York: KTAV Publishing House.

Krich, R. M. (1992). Till death do us part. New York. Avon Books.

Kubovy, M. (1989). The doctor's dilemma: The nature of jealousy in Agnon's "The doctor and his divorce." Hebrew Studies, 30, 41-47.

Ladden, R. S., & Franco, R. J. (1992). The enforceability of Jewish marriage contracts in civil courts. American Journal of Family Law, 6, 167-171.

Lamm, N. (1959). Recent additions to the Ketubah: A Halakhic Critique. Tradition, 2, 93-118.

Leifer, D. I. (1976). On writing new Ketubot. In E. Koltun (Ed.), The Jewish woman: New perspectives (pp. 50-61). New York: Schocken.

Levin, A. L., & Kramer, M. (1955). New provisions in the Ketubah: A legal opinion. New York: Yeshiva University.

Levy, Y. V. (1993-94). The Agunah and the missing husband: An American solution to a Jewish problem. Journal of Law and Religion, 10, 49-71.

Loewenstein, M. J. (1990). Jewish divorce and the secular law. Judaism, 39, 7-13.

Longwood, M. (1984). Divorce as an occasion of moral reconstruction. In L. L. Rasmussen (Ed.), The annual of the Society of Christian Ethics (pp. 229-248). Columbus, Ohio: Society of Christian Ethics.

Loring, M. T., Clark, S., & Frost, C. (1994). A model of therapy for emotionally abused women. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 31(2), 9-16.

Maller, A. S. (1992). Reducing the risks of divorce: A responsibility of religious educators. Religious Education, 87, 471-478.

Manor, D. W. (1984). A brief history of Levirate marriage as it relates to the Bible. Restoration Quarterly, 27, 129-142.

"Marriage Prisoners" (1984, Winter). Jewish Spectator, 49(4), 5-8.

Mehlman, B. H., & Sonsino, R. (1983, Summer). A Reform get: A proposal. Journal of Reform Judaism, 30, 31-36.

Meislin, B. J. (1981). Pursuit of the wife's right to a "get" in United States and Canadian courts. Jewish Law Annual, 4, 250-271.

Meiselman, M. (1978). Jewish woman in Jewish law. New York: KTAV Publishing House/Yeshiva University Press.

Moskowitz, M. (1976). Chaim Grade and the Jewish ego. Judaism, 25, 331-340.

Naves, E. K. (1992, Fall). Kol ishah: Canada's Parliament fixes Jewish divorce. Lilith, 17(4), 3-4.

Neufeld, E. (1989). Marriage after divorce in early Judaism. Didaskalia, 1, 26-33.

New, V. (1987). Non-financial pressures on a husband to grant a "get". Jewish Law Annual, 6, 210-215.

Novak, D. (1981). Annulment in lieu of divorce in Jewish law. Jewish Law Annual, 4, 188-206.

Novak, D. (1974). Law and theology in Judaism. New York" KTAV Publishing House.

Novak, D. (1985). The marital status of Jews married under non-Jewish auspices. Jewish Law Association Studies, 1, 61-77.

O'Brien (1974). Violence in divorce-prone families. In S. K. Steinmetz & M. A. Straus (Eds.), Violence in the family (pp. 65-75). New York: Dodd, Mead, and Company.

Osofsky, B. (1983, Winter). Kol ishah: Progress on the get problem. Lilith, 10, 4-5.

Overly, S. (1990-91). Case notes: Antenuptial agreements. Journal of Family Law, 29, 705-709.

Passamaneck, S. M. (1966). Some medieval problems in mamzeruth. Hebrew Union College Annual, 37, 121-145.

Piattelli, D. (1985). Ge and Ge Shirur. Jewish Law Association Studies, 1, 93-99.

Plaskow, J. (1993). Jewish feminism: The Year of the Agunah. Tikkun, 8(5), 52-53, 86-87.

Plaut, W. G. (1963). The rise of Reform Judaism. New York: World Union for Progressive Judaism.

Pfeffer, L., & Pfeffer, A. (1989). The Agunah in American secular law. Journal of Church and State, 31, 487-525.

Porter, J. N. (Ed.) (1995). Women in chains: A sourcebook on the Agunah. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.

Rabinowitz, L. I. (1971). The new trend in Halakhah. Tradition, 11, 5-15.

Rackman, E. (1961). The dialectic of the Halakhah. Tradition, 3, 131-150.

Rakeffet-Rothkoff, A. (1975). Annulment of marriage within the context of cancellation of the get. Tradition, 15(1/2), 173-185.

Redman, B. J. (1984-85). Jewish divorce: What can be done in secular courts to aid the Jewish woman? Georgia Law Review, 19, 389-425.

Ribner, D. S. (1983). Divorce in the traditional Jewish community. Unpublished doctor of social work dissertation, Columbia University, New York, New York.

Riskin, S. (1989). Women and Jewish divorce: The rebellious wife, the Agunah and the right of women to initiate divorce in Jewish law - A Halakhic solution. New York: KTAV Publishing House.

Riskin, S. (1991). Women and Judaism: The key issues. In J. Sacks (Ed.), Orthodoxy confronts modernity (pp. 86-96). Hoboken, NJ: KTAV Publishing House.

Robinson, M., & Parkinson, L. (1985). A family systems approach to conciliation in separation and divorce. Journal of Family Therapy, 7, 357-377.

Romero, M. (1985). A comparison between strategies used on prisoners of war and battered wives. Sex Roles, 13, 537-547.

Roop, E. F. (1976). Two become one become two. Brethren Life and Thought, 21, 133-137.

Rosenblatt, S. (1957). The Jewish laws of marriage and divorce applying to the mentally incapacitated. ". Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly of America, 21, 141-150.

Schramm, G. M. (1990). Ruth, Tamar, and Levirate marriage. In Michigan Series of the Middle East (No. 2), Studies in near east culture and history: In memory of Ernest T. Abdel-Massih (pp. 191-200). Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Near Eastern and North African Studies, The University of Michigan.

Schwartz, S. H. (1982). Conservative Judaism and the Agunah. Conservative Judaism, 36, 37-44.

Segal, J. B. (1979). The Jewish attitude towards women. Journal of Jewish Studies, 30, 121-137.

Segal, L. A. (1975). Eastern European Jewry revisited: The novel as social commentary (The Agunah, by Chaim Grade). Judaism, 24, 378-381.

Shaked, G. (1986). Midrash and narrative: Agnon's "Agunot". In G. H. Hartman & S. Budick (Eds.), Midrash and Literature (pp. 285-303). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Shapiro, S. (1988). Women and divorce in the Jewish community. Jewish Social Work Forum, 24, 45-54.

Shochetman, E. (1991). The power to render a lenient ruling: "Koa Dehetera Adif". Jewish Law Association Studies, 6, 125-155.

Shulman, S. S. (1984). Family law II: Civil involvement in Jewish divorce law. Annual Survey of American Law, pp. 969-976.

Sigal, P. (1975). Elements of male chauvinism in classical Halakhah. Judaism, 24, 226-244.

Sreter, D. E. (1989-90). Nothing to lose but their chains: A survey of the Aguna problem in American law. Journal of Family Law, 28, 703-726.

Stewart, C. W. (1963). Counseling the divorce. Pastoral Psychology, 14, 10-16.

Warmflash, L. M. (1983-84). The New York approach to enforcing religious marriage contracts: From Avitzur to the Get Statute. Brooklyn Law Review, 50, 229-253.

Washofsky, M. (1981). The recalcitrant husband: The problem of definition. Jewish Law Annual, 4, 144-166.

Wegner, J. R. (1990). Public man, private woman: The sexuality factor and the personal status of women in Mishnaic law. Jewish Law Association Studies, 4, 23-54.

Wegner, J. R. (1982). The status of women in Jewish and Islamic marriage and divorce law. Harvard Women's Law Journal, 5, 1-33.

Weiss-Rosmarin, T. (1965). The agony of the Agunah. Conservative Judaism, 20, 51-54.

Wise, M. J. (1980). The aftermath of divorce. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 40, 149-158.

Yaron, J. (1977). Crimes against women in Israel: Testimony at the International Tribunal, Brussels. Lilith, 1(3), 30-31.

Yaron, R. (1971). The Meadah Bill of Divorce. Studi in onore di Edoardo Volterra, 6, 433-455.

Yaron, R. (1982). The missing husband in Jewish law. In Mlanges a la mmoire de Marcel-Henri Prvost (pp. 133-140). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Young, B. H. (1995). 'Save the adulteress!': Ancient Jewish responsa in the Gospels? New Testament Studies, 41, 59-70.

Zlotowitz, B. M. (1984, Spring). Jewish divorce and the state. Reform Judaism, 12, 21.

Zunkel, C. W. (1976). Can a divorcée be forgiven? Brethren Life and Thought, 21, 155-160.

Feel Free to contact our Staff on all your questions relating to GET [Jewish Religious Divorce], Chalitza, Orthodox Conversions etc.

Our Beth Din arrange the GET process through National & International Orthodox Recognized Beth Din's [Batei Din].

 call us at 1 718 782 3645 or 1 212 425 2242