Divorce agreement
Divorce agreementiStock

In my prior article, Debunking a Feminist Propaganda Article, I critiqued an article on the Israel National News site that I consider to be feminist propaganda, and I explained that fairness and balance in regard to Jewish men's rights is practically non-existent in much of the Jewish media.

A new article has appeared on the Israel National News site that I would like to discuss.

Once again, I'm not claiming to know the divorcing spouses in this latest Arutz Sheva article. Nor am I attempting to address which spouse is "right" or which spouse is "wrong" in any particular divorce case.

Some anti-male biases and Torah distortions I observe in the article linked above:

1. Jewish husbands in divorce conflicts are portrayed solely as the perpetrators of injustice against their wives and never as possible victims of their wife's misconduct. (This is not to imply that Jewish men can never be guilty of marriage or divorce transgressions.)

2. Jewish wives in divorce conflicts are portrayed solely as the victims of their husbands who are portrayed as malicious "get refusers". Any severe halakhic misconduct by wives is simply ignored in the article, and is usually ignored by the "rabbis" and the Jewish media nowadays. However, it seems that most high-profile, alleged "agunot" cases nowadays involve at least some serious halakhic misconduct committed by the mother, such as litigating in family courts without valid halakhic authorization, and/or malicious alienation of the children from their father. Where is there ever any activism by the "agunah activist" rabbis on behalf of Jewish men who suffer gross injustices during divorce processes?

3. In the article, a case was discussed where allegedly a Brooklyn man had refused for the past decade or more to give his wife a get. A controversial "agunah activist" rabbi was quoted who was obviously sympathetic to the wife involved and was clearly representing the wife's viewpoint. No effort was made in the article to quote any rabbis who represent the viewpoint of the husband. As if Jewish husbands have no right to express their point of view, and the only point of view that ever matters is the wife's point of view.

4. The rabbi supporting the wife's viewpoint in the Arutz Sheva article claimed that a "contempt of court" ruling was signed by a "very prominent Chassidic leader". Such articles usually never inform us if the husband had appeared before another Beit Din of his choosing, which then issued a "contempt of court" ruling against the wife. "Leaders" are generally not qualified to make reliable statements about complex Jewish divorce matters. We don't know how much political clout that wife's family wielded in her Chassidic community. Only the quite small minority of honest, competent, non-feminist dayanim who exist nowadays are qualified to make any reliable statements about Jewish divorce matters.

5. As in the previous Arutz Sheva article, essential details are omitted, such as whether or not the alleged "get refusers" were simply asking for their normative halakhic rights (such as a normal relationship with their children) in return for agreeing to divorce. Without stating the men's conditions for divorce, how can the article imply these men were malicious "get refusers"?

6. There is a stench of halakhic fraud and intentionally omitted critical facts in many of the Jewish divorce articles we read nowadays. According to the article, a Knesset law gave "the Israeli rabbinical courts the authority to rule on cases of agunot living abroad". However, the Israeli rabbinate is not the Sanhedrin, and no Sanhedrin exists now. Nowadays only an authentic Sanhedrin can have authority over all Jews and over all halakhic matters in the world. "You shall act in accordance with the directions they (the Sanhedrin) give you" (Deuteronomy 17:11). (also see Rambam, Hilchot Sanhedrin). Where in authentic, traditional halakha can a secular Israeli parliament (including its hostile non-Jews) grant an Israeli Beit Din (not a Sanhedrin) authority over all other Jews and Batei Din in the world?

7. Arbitrary divorce on demand cannot be made compatible with authentic, halakhic Judaism. In the Talmud, an "agunah" is a woman whose husband is missing, due to no fault of her own, and she wants her husband back. In authentic, halakhic Judaism, a Jewish husband may not be coerced to divorce by a Beit Din except in a few unusual cases. The Mishneh in Nedarim 90b states that Jewish wives are NOT granted a get based on subjective and/or unproven claims, because of the concern that a woman has "cast her eyes on another man". Which rabbis/Batei Din determined that the 80 women discussed in the Arutz Sheva article were authentic "agunot" and for what valid halakhic reasons were the husbands of these women required to deliver gittin? How many non-feminist, traditional rabbis would even consider the large numbers of coerced gittin nowadays to be valid gittin under Jewish law?

In this latest Arutz Sheva article, we see further evidence of the tragic collapse of authentic, halakhic Judaism. Certain "hareidi" rabbis seem to be allying themselves with feminist movements to promote coerced gittin that enable a feminist divorce-on-demand culture in "Orthodox" Judaism.

Once again, it must be emphasized that feminist divorce-on-demand agendas are proving disastrous for both men and women as these agendas inflict great injustices on divorced Jewish men and further exacerbate the present Jewish family destruction and divorce wars.

Menachem Lowy is a New Jersey resident and the author of Jewish MGTOW Guide: Jewish Men Going Torah Observant Ways in Marriage and Divorce