CCAR RESPONSA
New American Reform Responsa
233. A Reform Get*
QUESTION: Should Reform Rabbis issue a formal document of divorce (get)? Should we consider the document in the new Rabbis Manual to be a get? (Morton Cohen, Los Angeles CA; Karen Silverman, New York NY; Michael Smith, Pittsburgh PA)ANSWER: An earlier responsum entitled; “Reform Judaism and Divorce” (W. Jacob (ed) American Reform Judaism #162), provided the historical background of the divorce proceedings. It did not, however, deal with the technical problems of a get. This decision should supplement the previous responsum. The get became important traditionally because of the question of mamzerut. In other words, the child of a union with a “married” woman or one otherwise forbidden would be placed in jeopardy and it is important for such offsprings to assume the status of their parent’s marriage. As we look at the entire area of divorce in the North American Jewish Community, we must ask ourselves what alternative paths are open to us. We may simply follow the procedure of the past, acknowledge civil divorce. This will continue to be appropriate for a large number of individuals, however, some individuals now desire a religious act to finalize the separation. It is religiously and psychologically satisfying to both parties. We might seek a uniform solution for all groups, Reform, Conservative and Orthodox, so that the document would be universally recognized. That is a praiseworthy goal but with the current mood of the Orthodox community may not be attainable. Perhaps some liberal Orthodox would be willing to work out a compromise, but it would not satisfy the rest and so it hardly seems worth the enormous effort. It might be more possible to establish a common basis for divorce with the Conservative movement or a mutual recognition of each other’s documents. This process would best be initiated in specific communities. That would provide working models and may lead to a greater understanding of the actual needs rather than satisfying the theoretical claims of each movement. As we return to summarize the history of divorce within the Reform movement, we see that various rabbinical conferences and synods of the last century in Germany and in the United States, tried to deal with the question of divorce alongside other problems. In the Paris Sanhedrin of 1806, the decision of those assembled was that no religious divorce would be granted unless a valid civil divorce had preceded (N. D. Tama (ed) Kirwan (tr) Transactions of the Parisian Sanhedrin 1807 pp 152 ff). This decision has been adopted by all groups within Judaism in every modern country. The Liberal synod, which gathered in Leipzig (1869), passed a number of other resolutions on this issue. They were favored by most of the individuals present including Abraham Geiger. It was agreed that the religious divorce needed to be simplified and that (a) it should be given as soon as a civil divorce has been settled; (b) rabbis should make an effort at reconciliation before a civil divorce is filed; (c) the document of the divorce should be brief, in the vernacular and presented to both parties; (d) the religious divorce should be granted even if one of the parties objected; (e) the woman may remarry even if she has no divorce; (f) a divorcee can marry a kohen as may a proselyte (Yearbook, Central Conference of American Rabbis Vol I pp 106 ff). The question of the equality of the sexes in matters of divorce was to be discussed at a later synod (Ibid 108). The synod held in Augsburg in 1871 established a committee to deal with divorce. It was to report at a future meeting and one of the concerns expressed was the equal treatment of both sexes. No later meeting was held. In the United States, divorce was discussed at the Philadelphia Conference of 1869 which declared that divorce was a purely civil matter and needed no religious steps whatsoever. Therefore, a get was not necessary. A rabbinic body should, however, investigate the conditions under which a divorce had been given to assure that they also meet the criteria for a Jewish divorce. At that meeting in Philadelphia two rabbis, Sonnenschein and Mielziner, felt that the get should be modified rather than completely abolished which was also a point of view expressed somewhat earlier by Geiger. It has been the general position of the Central Conference of American Rabbis to follow the stand taken by Kaufmann Kohler who recommended that civil divorces be recognized as long as the grounds for such a divorce were in keeping with the rabbinic tradition (Central Conference of American Rabbis Yearbook Vol 25 pp 376 ff). The matter, however, never came to an official vote within the Conference. We should note that the Orthodox rabbinate of France in 1907 suggested that a civil divorce decree annulled the marriage and the woman would be released and free to marry according to Jewish ritual subsequently. This suggestion, which was attacked by Orthodox authorities throughout the world, is very much akin to Reform Jewish practice (A. H. Freiman Seder Qiddushin Venisuin p 390). In 1924 the Orthodox rabbis of Turkey proposed a “conditional marriage” to solve the problems of divorce and a husband’s unwillingness to procure a get. This was subsequently rejected by Ben Zion Uziel of Israel (A. M. Freiman Seder Qiddushin Venisuin pp 391 ff). The mood both among rabbis and members of our congregations has changed especially as the number of divorces have increased. Some individuals now seek a religious resolution to the end of their marriage. This has led to the creation of the (Seder Peridah) “Document of Separation” in the new Rabbis Manual. Others have been willing to obtain an Orthodox or Conservative get despite the hardships involved and the secondary status given to the woman in those proceedings. As we look at the problems connected with a Reform get, let us look at the traditional get. The original requirements connected with it were rather simple, a divorce was easily obtained. The husband prepared for the divorce by asking a sofer (scribe) to write the document for him and indicated that he wished to divorce his wife. The specific name of the husband and the wife were given in the document; the city in which it was prepared was also indicated. No reason for the divorce was mentioned in the document itself. This document was then signed by two adult male Jewish witnesses who were unrelated to either party or to each other. It was then given to two other witnesses or perhaps to the same individuals who delivered it to the woman. Upon her acceptance the divorce became effective. The witnesses to the signature and to the delivery of the document could subsequently attest to the fact that everything had been accomplished to the law. This document, therefore, depended entirely on the husband and its acceptance by the wife. A rabbinical court (bet din) had no real standing in this matter unless a further dispute arose. It may or may not have supervised the various stages of the document, i.e. the proper composition, witnessing and delivery, but that was not essential. The court did not initiate the procedure nor did it provide any kind of hearings in the matter. These proceedings were straightforward and uncomplicated until questions of custody and financial control were raised. As such issues are nowadays settled by the civil courts, we need not be troubled by them. Throughout the centuries, questions have been raised about the names of the individuals in the documents, the fitness of the individuals who were witnesses, the state of mind of the author of the document and the state of mind of the recipient, the qualifications of the scribe, etc. Eventually this simple document became rather complex. Its Hebrew or Aramaic text was fit into precisely thirteen lines. The names of each of the individuals involved had to be spelled absolutely correctly and there were frequent discussions about the precise name of the individuals, nicknames, etc. Furthermore, even the city involved had to be spelled properly, often in order to locate it precisely, a river or stream flowing through the city was also mentioned. If it was the first get written in a location, then each subsequent get had to be written in the same manner. The delivery of the get had to be properly attested and since the decree of Rabbenu Gershom (1000 C.E.) a get could not be given to a woman against her will. Delivery had to be established through the woman’s actual acceptance of the document; it could not be deposited with her. There is a vast literature which deals with each of these questions in every century. Most of the issues involved which troubled previous generations are of no concern to us as the civil court has already dealt with them in its own way and in a manner which is acceptable to us. At this time, therefore, we have accepted civil divorce without a get for more than a century. We are not prepared to suggest a formal change in this procedure. The “Document of Separation” (Seder Peridah, Rabbis Manual 1988) provides an alternative which may be religiously and psychologically satisfying as it gives the couple the feeling that there has been a religious dissolution of their marriage. This document is not to be considered a get as indicated in the note of the Rabbi’s Manual: “However, it should also be understood by all that such a ritual and the document attesting it do not have the standing of a get“. The use of the “Document of Separation” may eventually lead us to reopen the matter of a Reform get. At this time we recommend that Reform rabbis use the Seder Peridah for those couples who seek a religious dissolution of their marriage within the Reform framework. Those who wish to marry a traditional partner or face other obstacles may obtain an Orthodox get. The Seder Peridah is not to be considered as such a document.July 1988
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.