Beis din can categorize a case as being one of four levels of dysfunction 1) nothing serious but one party wants out and the other doesn't 2) One or both party is irritating or abusive to the other - but nothing that counseling and good will can't fix 3) One party has serious problems such as being physically abusive or suffers from mental health or physical issues which make the marriage very unpleasant. In such a case the beis din can order the husband to give a divorce. 4) the existence of a pre-existing condition that was not known to the spouse which makes marriage impossible for most people such as severe mental illness. It is not fixable and as soon as the spouse found out about it - left the marriage.”
I copied and pasted this quote above from the latest post on
the Friedman/Epstein case. I have zero knowledge of that case, though I
recall there being quite an uproar about it several years ago. I plead
equal expertise in the sugya of kidushei to’us. I was impressed with the
information in the quote above. The comment that follows is a sentiment I
have shared with you previously. Writing this now is as much to share it
again as it is to get it off my chest.
My first question is – who makes the determination about the
level of dysfunction? I have yet to meet an average Rov or even Dayan who
possesses this expertise. Allow me to quote a dayan who is well known and
a giant halacha expert. This involved a case where a couple had been with
me, where the wife withdrew, and claimed that her husband was the
problem. He was. He was a professional schmatte, acceding to her
abusiveness, which was physical, emotional, and constant. In my office,
she threatened him with arrest. She openly stated that she hits herself
to cause bruises so that she could get him locked up one day. Well, she
did precisely that. Together with several askanim, we made sure he was
released from central Booking that night. She had his
tallis/Tefillin. She delivered then to a Rov where he could pick them
up. She was waiting there with her phone in hand to call 911 that he
violated the order of protection. He did not pick it up personally, but
through another Rov. 2 days later, she had her brother-in-law follow him
into mikva, and pickpocketed his driver’s license. The quite renowned Rov
was contacted, and was given the license. Once again the wife had the Rov
summon the husband to return the “lost” license. Of course, she is
waiting with her phone to call 911 to re-arrest the husband. I met with
this Rov a few days later, and he insisted that the children need an intact
parental unit. I told him that the line crossed was way too far for
tolerance, and that once a wife fabricates a police report, I would never trust
her again. He debated the “leibedige yesomim” line, and I retorted that I
would accept responsibility for that, while getting the mitzvah of לא תעמוד על דם רעך. Bottom line, that Rov, with all his
genius in halacha, was grossly incompetent to assess the viability of the
marriage.
Now for the play-by-play.
1. One party wants out but the other
doesn’t. I have no question about what halacha requires. Torah
provides ample leeway for the husband to determine what is unacceptable, כי מצא בה ערות דבר, with its many interpretations.
However, a Rov is also obligated to guide those he serves with guidance that is
effective and productive. To stay married to someone you want who doesn’t
want you is akin to a life sentence. A Rov needs to guide על פי
הלכה, but needs to consider ישרות as well. Shamefully,
this has become the exception.
2. One party is irritating or abusive to the
other – but nothing that counseling and good will can’t fix. Not sure
what this means. And I am a therapist with lots of experience and
training. How on Earth should a Rov know what this is? Counseling
experience? Evaluation skills? Perhaps investigation of who is
being truthful? When batei din get into this, I trust their intentions as
being holy (though oft times they may not be), but they are still way too often
more damaging than helpful.
3. Serious problems, physically abusive, mental
health or physical issues. See #2. What dayanim are equipped to
assess these issues or to verify truth? The percentage of false reports
of domestic violence exceeds 50%. I recognize the need to be cautious,
and I also know quite well that abusers deny having committed this. But
it is the exception when a Rov gives a “heter” to separate which includes
having listened to the other side of the story.
4. Pre-existing conditions. Unfortunately,
many shidduchim are completed with one side having been given a “heter” to
withhold information. I personally consulted to several cases where
someone was taking serious anti-psychotic medications, and the parents had a
story to excuse why they kept the information secret. The wife had zero
relationship with a husband who was close to catatonic, or so medicated that he
was barely functional. In one case, the boy’s father sat in my office
telling me that girl had “social issues” that excused giving her a technically
male adult for a husband. Not only was this untrue as per my evaluation,
but I was able to obtain information (with consent) from her mechanchos that
she was a stellar girl without issues. Another case, currently
consulting, involves a young woman with a serious intestinal disorder that has
already resulted in several hospitalizations, surgeries, and current issues of
ostomies. As per the family’s Daas Torah, the issue was only disclosed at
date #7, when the boy was already pushing to propose. I have no clue
which poskim are advising to withhold such information, but it is commonplace,
and almost always a recipe for disaster. I also marvel at the statements
from Rabbonim about the therapies for borderline personality, and the
addictions, mostly devoid of empirical support or logic.
So, are batei din qualified to decide on these types of
situations? I wish they were. My experience indicates otherwise.
My only remedy for the situation is to open up these issues to rabbonim
who team up with the relevant, qualified professionals.
While I agree with the view expressed in the comment - it is important to note that it is not enough that rabbis consult therapist. One of the major sources of trouble in the Tamar Epstein heter was that therapists were consulted or rather used - to produce halachic conclusions - that were not justified either by psychology or halcha.
ReplyDeleteThus I think the question is how can rabbis and therapists work together without losing their integrity and function outside of their competence?
Being neither a rav nor a therapist, I have the following questions regarding the therapist’s comments:
ReplyDelete1) nothing serious but one party wants out and the other doesn't
Is the therapist’s argument that if one spouse insists that they want out of the marriage, yashrus generally requires (even if there is no pure halachic obligation) the other spouse to give/receive a get in the normal course of settling all issues, including custody and property, in a good faith manner? Or does the therapist argue that yashrus requires giving/receiving a get, regardless of a halachic requirement to do so, even if the other spouse acts in an extremely bad faith manner with regard to other aspects dissolving the marriage, such as severely interfering with the other parent’s ability to have a meaningful relationship with the children?
The therapist makes the point that some marriages are so abusive (such as your case No. 3) that the abused spouse should not be encouraged to stay in the marriage for the sake of the children. But does the therapist believe that as a communal matter, the leaving spouse in case No. 1 should be told in no uncertain terms (whether by that spouse’s family, rabbi, or other trusted advisers) that destroying a family in such circumstances is completely unacceptable, as opposed to encouraging the spouse to follow their desire to leave? And does the therapist believe that even in sub-optimal marriages with problems that fall short of abuse (in other words your case No. 2) the couple has an obligation to stay together for the sake of the children?
Does the therapist believe that the frum community currently has a bigger problem with (A) spouses being wrongly encouraged to stay in abusive marriages, or (B) spouses leaving marriages that should not be dissolved, partially because the frum community as a whole is no longer sufficiently stressing the importance of keeping families intact.
It appears to me that a part of the frum community has been infected by the morals of the radical 1960’s counterculture whose attitude towards divorce was so well decried by the late Senator Moynihan, in his article “Defining Deviancy Down” - Divorce represents part of the normal family life cycle. It should not be viewed as either deviant or tragic, as it has been in the past. Rather, it establishes aprocess for "uncoupling" and thereby serves as the foundation for individual renewal and "new beginnings."
Longer excerpt below:
The life course is full of exciting options. The lifestyle options available to individuals seeking a fulfilling personal relationship include living a heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual single lifestyle; living in a commune; having a group marriage; beings single parent; or living together. Marriage is yet another lifestyle choice. However, before choosing marriage, individuals should weigh its costs and benefits against other lifestyle options and should consider what they want to get out of their intimate relationships. Even within marriage, different people want different things. For example, some people marry for companionship, some marry in order to have children, some marry for emotional and financial security. Though marriage can offer a rewarding path to personal
growth, it is important to remember that it cannot provide a secure or permanent status. Many people will make the decision between marriage and singlehood many times throughout their life. Divorce represents part of the normal family life cycle. It should not be viewed as either deviant or tragic, as it has been in the past. Rather, it establishes a process for "uncoupling" and thereby serves as the foundation for individual renewal and "new beginnings."
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu
From an anecdotal perspective (and from being consulted on many many cases) i can say there are rabbonim who are as good as or better than many therapists, and many rabbonim and therapists who are completely incompetent, and most important, rabbonim and therapists who have an agenda. (But very few rabbonim who keep confidentiality.)
ReplyDeleteI also find few clients use proper referrals in choosing a therapist. Vast majority just choose one from the 'yellow pages' (to use an old phrase.)
In Case # 1, where one party wants out of the marriage for no halachicly justifiable reason, and the other spouse wants to continue the marriage, the job of the Rov or therapist is to convince the spouse wishing to quit to reconsider and not seek divorce. That is the primary job.
ReplyDeleteIf the spouse wishing to quit remains stubborn and still demands out of the marriage despite having no justification for breaking the marriage and despite the fact that their spouse wishes to continue the marriage, there are two paths forward. And the choice of which of these two paths is exclusively in the hands of the spouse who wishes the marriage to continue. 1) He or she may reluctantly agree to the divorce. If this path is chosen, this spouse is entitled to place conditions to agreeing to the divorce. Conditions might include on receiving custody, specific visitation, keeping various monetary/marital assets, and even being compensated for being effectively forced into divorce despite wishing to not break the marriage that both spouses committed to under the wedding canopy. The second choice the spouse is fully entitled to choose to pursue is 2) continuing to insist the marriage continue and that no divorce be issued or accepted. This is a right guaranteed to the husband in Halacha in Torah Law itself and granted to the wife by Rabbeinu Gershom (R"G). R"G extended what had previously been only the husband's right, namely to insist to continue the marriage despite his wife's desire for a divorce, and granted a similar right to the wife, namely that she can successfully insist the marriage continue even if her husband wishes to divorce her. So fundamental is this marital right, including the full legitimacy of a spouse to exercise this fundamental marital right, the R"G extended it that divorce must (under normal circumstances) be mutually agreed to and cannot be unilaterally desired and imposed upon a spouse unwilling to get divorced.
"My first question is – who makes the determination about the level of dysfunction?"
ReplyDeleteBeis Din makes that determination. The parameters of dysfunction warranting divorce are a halachic matter. Shulchan Aruch is very clear that a) beis din determines what level of dysfunction is occurring and b) whether that level warrants divorce. The Halacha, as enumerated in S"A, gives specific details of what issues do and do not warrant divorce.
The poster writes as though therapists are these wise men (or women), whose expert opinion can be counted on to get to the bottom of things and prescribe "professional" solutions. But is that really the case? In point of fact, a degree does not impart wisdom. I've encountered any number of therapists, both personally and professionally, and let's just say -- their wisdom has left me underwhelmed. Not to mention the various frum therapist flakes that abound, and the ones with massive shalom bayis problems of their own. And not to mention the therapists who possess plenty of book knowledge, but who lack insight and understanding. These too abound. A wise, intuitive, experienced rav or dayan can easily be a far better counselor than any therapist, training notwithstading. The problem lies in finding a rav with those qualities. Well, the same problem applies with regard to finding a therapist with those qualities, b/c those lacking such qualities can cause tremendous damage. It's a crapshoot either way.
ReplyDelete