The AF Case


The AF Case is about Mr. AF whose wife left him and took their child. Things have dragged on and he has not given her a GET. Thereupon many rabbonim signed letters demanding a GET and there were demonstrations against him, and he is ostracized in his community and cannot attend services on Shabbos in a shul. I have contacted AF and spoke to him at length. I tried to talk to his wife but it was refused. Major newspapers covered the story.

The story seems to be a simple one: A man is refusing his wife a GET. The man is guilty, is doing an evil thing, and everyone must scream and demonstrate and humiliate and ostracize him until he gives a GET. If we could beat him up physically to force the GET, we would do so, but that is criminal, so we have to do everything else but nothing illegal. This seems to be the story in the papers, in the community, and from the pen of the rabbis who talk about this. It all seems one sided. But there is another side here, one that is the theme of our website here. We see in this case all of the mistakes that are destroying families in our community, and it is all leshaim shomayim, and it is done with the backing and enthusiastic participation of many rabbis. But nobody talks about the really important lessons from this story. I completely disagree with the common approach to this issue.

  1. First of all. What happened? A wife fled the state with a child that was not only hers but her husband's. She stole a child. Is this woman the hero and the husband the bum?

  2. If the woman had a complaint against her husband or a demand for a divorce, she should apply for help in a Beth Din. If the Beth Din told her to flee, then she is a hero. But now, she is a thief.

  3. The decision to flee with her daughter robbed her daughter of a father.

  4. As the daughter comes to marital age, the fact that her parents are apart and battling and the fact that the relationship with the father is limited to some visitations will surely impact upon her own marriage, which is a transference of her family experiences especiallly with her father to a husband. What will she transfer?

  5. The wife thus caused grievous damage to two people, her husband and her child. For this the community attacks the husband and treats her like a hero?

  6. We must ask: Is this woman an Agunah, or is she a thief? In Torah terms, she is not a hero, not an Agunah, but a Moredess, one who breaks the sacred ties of marriage without the permission of a Beth Din.

  7. If a husband runs away from his wife, he is terribly wicked and she is an Agunah. Why in this case is the one who runs away from the marriage, and steals a child, the hero, and the subject of pity, but the suffering and bereaved husband, the wicked one?

  8. I achieved success with the worst Agunah cases in Monsey, by involving the community and being honest and fair with the husbands. If you humiliate a husband you make things worse, not better. And if you really terrorize him, the GET is probably invalid.

  9. Nobody wants to talk about the fact that it is forbidden by the Torah to have a forced GET. Nor does anyone want to talk about the fact that it is forbidden by all of the poskim to ostracize a husband with active not passive ostracizing. Calling him names and trying to ruin his livelihood are grounds for an invalid GET. And yet, we have rabbis who are obviously ignorant of Torah, who demand that people demonstrate against the husband in public and destroy his livelihood. And what kind of results are there from this? An invalid GET.

  10. The poskim who quote Rabbein Tam who invented the idea of ostracizing, say it is only permitted when the husband can save himself by leaving to another town. Nowadays, Ora tortures husbands in various towns, he cannot escapee, therefore according to Rabbeinu Tam it is forbidden to ostrasize the husband even in a passive manner, certainly not in an active manner.

  11. The following forbid the ostracizing of Rabbeinu Tam even in a passive way: Shach, Chazon Ish and I have proof that the Ramo and Vilna Gaon agree to this. But this is only with passive ostracizing. To publicly insult the husband is foribdden by the Rashbo, Kesef Mishneh and Radvaz.

  12. Even if we permit ostracizing, public humiliation is considered by the Talmud as murder, and a threat of murder invalidates a GET given becauase of this threat.

  13. We have a Hebrew file on this site with halacha material proving what we said here. You may open it from the home page.