Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

It began when Susan Zinkin divorced her husband in 1962, but little did she realize she would be a “bound woman” forbidden to marry for the next 50 years of her life because her husband refused to grant her a religious divorce. Hence, she became a “chained wife” under Jewish law until her husband died 50 years later. Now, at age 73, Ms Zinkin, a retired Orthodox Jewish teacher from north London, divorced Israel Errol Elias in Britain’s spoke of her relief at finally being freed from her status as the world’s longest-serving “chained wife.”

“As awful as it may sound my ex-husband’s death is a great relief and a huge weight off my shoulders – to be stuck like that was so cruel,” she said yesterday in an interview with The Independent. “I’m quite convinced that had the rabbis wanted to get their act together they could have done something within Jewish law and found a solution.”

Of course they could have done many things, e.g., haf’ka’at kiddushin, better known as annulment. It’s a method that has been practiced for 1700 years-but the conservatism of today’s ultra-Orthodox rabbis prevent them from utilizing this time-honored method of dissolving a bad marriage like Ms. Zinkin’s.

Despite efforts to shame him, nothing worked, in fact the protests only seemed to strengthen his resolve. The outcry for justice went with no rabbinic response, they were too powerless to do anything.

Speaking from her home in Kfar Saba, near Tel Aviv, Ms Zinkin called on Britain’s network of beth dins (Jewish courts) to do more to help chained women and to speak out against husbands who refuse to grant divorces. “The Jewish religious authorities come together to talk about and solve all sorts of religious and social problems but they never seem to get around to discussing [agunahs],” she said. “It is time they did.”

Here’s the worst part of it. Ms Zinkin, feared that her children would be stigmatized if she remarried. Her children – and any of her future offspring – would also be shunned as mamzers, a halakhic term to describe the offspring of adulterous or incestuous relationships. “That’s a terrible stigma for the child,” she explained. “They’re illegitimate for Jewish purposes and I just couldn’t do that to any child of mine. Even Jews who aren’t very religious wouldn’t necessarily want to marry someone and have children born with mamzer status.”

For the first time in her adult life, Ms Zinkin is free.

Case 1: “Rabbi Chisda stated: If a man gives his wife a get (a religious divorce) and the get is in her hand but the end of a string which is attached to the get is in the husband’s hand, then the law is: If the string is so strong that the husband could pull the get away and bring it to himself, then the get is invalid. If the string is too weak, then the divorce is valid (BT Gittin 78b).

Case 2: If a husband stipulates, “This is your get on condition that you ascend up into heaven, on condition that you descend down into the depths, on condition that you swallow a reed four cubits long, on condition that you bring me a reed hundred cubits long, or on condition that you walk across the Mediterranean, this is not a valid get” (BT Gittin 84a).

Unfortunately today, the Orthodox rabbinate in Israel has done its best to keep the strings of control in the hands of the husbands and rabbinic courts, who consistently rule in favor of the patriarchal order while making impossible conditions for these poor women to become free.

Until the rabbis realize that they are the real problem, women like Ms. Zinkin will continue to suffer from the bondage imposed upon them. The “Gedolim” have a moral responsibility to bring relief to the innocent and the downtrodden ladies of our time that are being held hostage by an anachronistic religious world-view that does not respect its women, but merely wishes to control them-just as men have been doing since the beginning of recorded human history.

Postscript

I had a conversation with my old friend Gloria, and I asked her opinion regarding the Agunah question. While I may not necessarily agree with her, I do think she raises good questions the “chained woman” ought to be asking herself. Gloria does not feel any compassion toward the agunah. Why? Because she is the victim of her own foolish belief system. If she had a modicum of self-respect, she would do whatever she wants and say, “To Hell, with this sexist form of Judaism!” Maybe she is right in a way. If the Agunot made it clear they would leave Orthodoxy altogether and marry anyone they see fit, I think the draconian rabbis would probably come up with a solution-and simply annul the marriage. Gloria adds, “What these women need is not a Get (a religious divorce), but ‘get-up-and-go,’ because each woman is responsible for her own happiness.”

What do you think?