גריי מאטר ג, בית דין, גיטי מלחמהGray Matter III, Beit Din, Wartime Gittin
א׳
1Since the time that the Torah was given, poskim have exerted great effort to avoid Jewish women becoming agunot.1Literally “anchored women,” this term refers to women who wish to remarry but may not do so according to Halachah. In Gray Matter 1, the first several chapters (pp. 3-59) address the problem of agunot who can not remarry because their husbands cruelly withhold gittin. The present chapter deals with a different kind of agunot: women who may not remarry because their husbands have disappeared and might still be alive. In Gray Matter 2, there is an extensive discussion (pp. 114-138) of how rabbinic courts handled the agunot from the World Trade Center tragedy in 2001. A classic example is the practice (Shabbat 56b and Ketubot 9b) of anyone who went to war with King David’s army to write a get to his wife to avoid her becoming an agunah in case he disappeared in battle. Rashi (Ketubot 9b s.v. Get Keritut) believes that such a get was given conditionally, whereas Rabbeinu Tam (cited in Tosafot Ketubot 9b s.v. Kol Hayotzei) argues that such gittin were given unconditionally. The Rambam (Teshuvot Harambam 439 in the Blau edition) clarifies that the expression “King David’s army” refers to any army that is led by a righteous, God-fearing Jew, and not specifically to the army led by King David.2We see from the Rambam that responsible Jewish leadership in any age should take steps to ensure that soldiers’ wives do not become agunot.
ב׳
2In this chapter, we shall discuss five variations on how such gittin were produced during the wars of the twentieth century, beginning with the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905), continuing with World War I (1914-1918) and World War II (1939-1945), and concluding with the Israeli War of Independence (1948) and the Six Day War (1967). We will note the advantages and disadvantages of each of the five approaches, discuss the possible applications of the outlined methodologies to contemporary non-war situations, and call for the renewal of the practice of soldiers authorizing such gittin before entering combat.
ג׳
3A Conventional Get – Rabbeinu Tam and Rabbeinu Yechiel of Paris
ד׳
4Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin (Teshuvot Ivra 80) and Rav Shlomo Yosef Zevin (L’or Hahalachah p. 67) note that the preferred method to avoid wartime agunot is for a married soldier to divorce his wife with a conventional get before he leaves for war. The advantage of solving the problem in this manner is that it is a straightforward halachic procedure.3Halachically valid conditions are complex and must meet specific criteria in order to be valid. See Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 143-148) for the many detailed regulations that apply to conditional gittin. Indeed, Rabbeinu Yechiel of Paris (cited in the Mordechai, Gittin 423) instituted the practice that if a get is administered when a childless husband is deathly ill in order for the wife to avoid chalitzah,4Chalitzah is the ceremony (outlined in Devarim 25:7-10) in which the brother of a man who died childless officially declines to marry the deceased’s widow, thereby permitting her to remarry. the get should not be given on condition that the husband dies (so that the couple will remain married if he recovers). Instead, the couple should conduct a standard get and solemnly promise5This involves both parties accepting, on pain of excommunication, the obligation to remarry if the husband recovers. In addition, a significant financial penalty would be imposed upon a recalcitrant party. to remarry should the husband recover.6I recall a case in the 1990s in which a husband was undergoing very risky surgery and wished to give his wife a get so that she would not remain an agunah if the surgery rendered him incapacitated and incompetent. Rav Peretz Steinberg, a noted dayan from Queens, New York, conducted a conventional get. Similarly, Rav Yonah Reiss reports that when the Beth Din of America deals with husbands suffering from an early stage of Alzheimer’s disease, a conventional get is conducted. Indeed, the Maharsha (in his concluding comment to Masechet Gittin) cites the aforementioned view of Rabbeinu Tam that wartime gittin were conducted unconditionally as proof that all gittin should be executed in this way.
ה׳
5The Rama (E.H. 155:9) rules in accordance with Rabbeinu Yechiel of Paris. The Aruch Hashulchan (E.H. Seder Haget Hatemidi 1; see also E.H. 147:11) likewise notes that we do not administer conditional gittin in our times and that a Rav should refuse to administer a get if the husband insists on attaching a condition.7In fact, while observing the Jerusalem Rabbinical Court in 1993, I watched a husband (who happened to be a rabbi) stubbornly insist that the get between him and his wife be conducted conditionally. He argued that the Talmud was replete with discussions of gittin conducted conditionally. One of the dayanim (rabinnic judges), Rav Zalman Nechemia Goldberg, told the man, “You are a talmid chacham (Torah scholar). You have heard of Rabbeinu Yechiel of Paris, yes?” The husband replied in the affirmative. Rav Goldberg continued, “Rabbeinu Yechiel of Paris decreed that we do not conduct conditional gittin,” which ended the discussion.
ו׳
6There are some obvious disadvantages to conducting gittin unconditionally. First, couples may find it too discomforting. Moreover, there is no absolute guarantee of remarriage, since violation of the solemn promise to remarry does not invalidate the get according to most authorities (see Aruch Hashulchan E.H. 145:30).8See, though, Teshuvot Mishkenot Yaakov (E.H. 34), who rules that the get is void if the promise is not kept. Furthermore, it might demoralize soldiers at a time when courage is needed most. Finally, and perhaps most important, this approach is unsuitable for a kohen, since a kohen is forbidden to marry a divorcee, even his former wife. Thus, despite the advantages of unconditional gittin, conditional gittin were often conducted in wartime.
ז׳
7Conditional Gittin – Teshuvot Divrei Malkiel and Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinsky
ח׳
8Many soldiers insisted that a wartime get be given to their wives which would take effect only if they become classified as missing in action. The condition was often formulated as stating that the get takes effect retroactively if he does not return within two years of its execution. The disadvantage of conducting a get in this manner is that it involves the risk of improper execution. Moreover, the Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 147:1) rules in accordance with the view of the Rambam (Hilchot Geirushin 8:3) that conditions not be mentioned during the writing of the get. A condition should be mentioned only at the time of the get’s delivery.
ט׳
9In wartime situations, the scribes and witnesses constantly were busy with soldiers executing conditional gittin and were very much aware that a condition would be mentioned at the time of the delivery of the get from husband to wife. Many poskim considered this to constitute a very serious problem9Since the scribe and witnesses in reality were writing and signing the get conditionally, even though the condition was not formally stated beforehand, the get’s validity is questionable. and therefore sought to convince husbands to execute unconditional gittin. The Maharsham (Teshuvot Maharsham 3:7) and other poskim presented arguments that the gittin were valid even in such circumstances.10For further discussion of this issue, see Rav Shlomo Yosef Zevin’s Le’or Hahalchah pp. 76-77.
י׳
10To compensate for this problem, most of the methodologies advocated by the Teshuvot Divrei Malkiel (4:156) for use by soldiers who fought during the Russo-Japanese war of 1905 involved the husband appointing a sofer to write a get, witnesses to sign it, and an agent to deliver it to the wife. The husband would authorize the agent to stipulate conditions at the time of delivery, giving the sofer no knowledge of any such conditions so as not to encounter the problem associated with such knowledge. The condition stipulated would be that the get takes retroactive effect if the husband does not return from war. Indeed, Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinsky (in a letter printed in Teshuvot Heichal Yitzchak E.H. 2:36) notes that the standard procedure used by the Rabbis of Vilna for soldiers going to fight in the very early stages of World War II was the conditional get. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe E.H. 4:111) also advocates use of a conditional get.11Rav Moshe, though, adds an additional step, as we shall discuss below.
י״א
11A problem that arose with conditional wartime gittin was the situations in which a kohen was not able to return before the stipulated time. In one such case that was presented to the Netziv (Teshuvot Meishiv Davar 3:51), a kohen stipulated that his get take effect if he did not return to a specific town within two years. Hostilities ceased by then, but the army did not permit him to travel to that town within the allotted two years. The husband desperately sought to return home so as to avoid the get taking effect and his wife being rendered forbidden to him forever. Fortunately, the Netziv ruled that the get was rendered invalid because the wife waived the stipulation that was made for her benefit.12On the other hand, Rav Avraham Bornstein (Teshuvot Avnei Neizer E.H. 200) validated a get in a similar situation. The case involved a kohen who fought in the Russian army during the Russo-Japanese War and was unable to return within the stipulated two years because he was being held in Japan as a prisoner of war. The Avnei Neizer ruled that the get was valid despite the kohen’s written request to his wife to appear before the beit din and invalidate the conditional get he left for her. Sadly, the couple was forbidden to reunite after his return. To avoid such scenarios, the Teshuvot Divrei Malkiel formulated the stipulation as stating that the get would take effect only after the wife presented the dayan at the beit din with a minimal amount of money. In this manner, the get would not take effect if the wife did not want it to.
י״ב
12Writing the Get after the War – Rav David Singer of Pilzno, Galicia
י״ג
13In the fall of 1914, as Jewish young men were being drafted into the armies of World War I, Rav David Singer of Pilzno, Galicia suggested an alternative to soldiers giving their wives conditional gittin. He wrote (as is recorded in Teshuvot Minchat Elazar 3:6813A reproduced copy of the flier that Rav Singer produced was given to me by his son, Rav Yosef Singer of New York.) that soldiers could appear before a competent beit din and appoint a scribe to write a get, witnesses to sign it, and an agent to deliver it. The beit din would record this event but would write and deliver the get only if the husband did not return from war and his death could not be ascertained.
י״ד
14The advantage of conducting a get in this manner, writes Rav Singer, is that it is simpler to execute than a conditional get. It is easier on the couple as well, as it avoids the discomfort of the husband handing a get to his beloved wife. This, in turn, motivates soldiers who might otherwise not do so to give a wartime get to avoid a potential agunah situation. Moreover, it facilitates conducting large numbers of wartime gittin for the thousands of soldiers who are being rushed to battle. Appointments of scribes, witnesses, and agents take a fraction of the time that it takes to execute a full get. Furthermore, it eases the toll on morale, as there is a more remote connection between the soldier and the get. If a full get would be performed, it would suggest the disturbing possibility that the husband might die or disappear. Finally, this method is in harmony with Rabbeinu Yechiel of Paris’s edict to avoid conditional gittin as much as possible.14The husband does not stipulate any conditions in the execution of the get, for it is understood that the beit din will not allow the scribe, witnesses, and agent to execute the get until it is necessary to do so. This is not considered a conditional get - see Ba’eir Heiteiv (E.H. 147:1).
ט״ו
15Rav Singer’s proposal was endorsed by two renowned poskim of the time, Rav Meir Arik and Rav Yosef Engel, as appears on the poster produced by Rav Singer. The Teshuvot Divrei Malkiel (4:156) also approves the use of Rav Singer’s method if the husband has children, although he does not prefer this method due to concern that one of the people appointed to execute the get will not be available to do so.15The Teshuvot Divrei Malkiel advocates the use of Rav Singer’s method only if there is concern that the couple might not remarry if the get is delivered immediately.
ט״ז
16This proposal, however, is not without its disadvantages. It does not address the problem of chalitzah. Accordingly, if the husband is dead or missing, having authorized execution of a get would not obviate the wife’s obligation to undergo chalitzah.16Rav Shlomo Goren (Teshuvot Meishiv Milchamah 3:62) records that there were widows who experienced difficulties regarding chalitzah (due to brothers who lived outside the country or who were minors and thus ineligible to perform chalitzah) in the wake of both the Israeli War of Independence and the Yom Kippur War. Unlike the first two options that we outlined, Rav Singer’s solution does not take effect immediately (or retroactively). Instead, it is executed only after the husband is assumed to be dead, at which point the get does not avert the need for chalitzah (Pitchei Teshuvah E.H. 141:70).17The get is executed and delivered only if there is insufficient evidence of the husband’s death to permit the wife to remarry. See, though, Pitchei Teshuvah (E.H. 141:72), who presents opinions that a get should not be delivered if the husband is assumed to be dead.
י״ז
17In addition, since it does not operate retroactively, such a get is not effective in a case of the husband losing his mental faculties in war, since Halachah requires that the husband be of sound mind both at the time of appointing the scribe, witnesses, and agent as well as at the time of the delivery of the get (Shulchan Aruch E.H. 121).18The Teshuvot Minchat Elazar (3:68) addresses the question of how we can write a get on behalf of the husband and not be concerned with the possibility that the missing husband became mentally incompetent and incapable of having a get executed on his behalf.
י״ח
18Finally, Rav Singer does not address the possibility of the scribe, witnesses, or agent moving overseas or dying in the interim. Subsequent variations of Rav Singer’s proposal, such as that of Rav Herzog (Teshuvot Heichal Yitzchak E.H. 2:41), offer the option of appointing alternate scribes, witnesses, and agents in case any of the people appointed to execute the get are unavailable to do so.
י״ט
19World War II
כ׳
20Poskim were posed with two great challenges in preparing wartime gittin during World War Two.19The Jewish people were blessed with three great poskim who invested much time and energy in executing these gittin: Rav Yechezkel Abramsky in London, Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin in New York, and Rav Yitzchak Herzog in Jerusalem. In fact, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate’s archives contain more than two thousand documents, signed by married Jewish residents of Eretz Yisrael who joined the British army to fight the Nazis, authorizing a scribe, witnesses, and an agent to execute a get in case a soldier is declared missing(Techumin 27:420). First, the great number of Jewish soldiers required the poskim to offer options of executing gittin in a most efficient manner. The Encyclopedia Judaica (11:1550) states that more than half a million Jews served in the United States army, over sixty thousand in the British army, and another thirty five thousand Jewish residents of Eretz Yisrael volunteered in the British army. In addition, many of the soldiers had limited commitment to Torah observance, which added to the poskim’s burden to make the issuance of such gittin easy and expedient. Thus, the poskim used the option presented by Teshuvot Divrei Malkiel (4:156) of appointing a scribe and witnesses even not in the presence of the scribe and witnesses.
כ״א
21Appointing a scribe and witnesses in such a manner is highly controversial.20For a review of this controversy, see my article regarding the propriety of executing a get by video teleconference (Techumin 14:272-276 and available at www.koltorah.org). Nonetheless, there were circumstances in which soldiers were located very far from a beit din. In such cases, Rav Abramsky (Hapardeis, Tishrei 5701-1940), Rav Henkin (Teshuvot Ivra 80), and Rav Herzog (ad. loc.) all utilized this option and composed documents authorizing the writing and delivery of a get, which soldiers could effectuate by reading aloud and signing before a competent beit din.
כ״ב
22The Chazon Ish (E.H. 85), however, vigorously protested the appointment of a scribe in such a manner. He writes as an alternative that a soldier stationed far from a beit din should be instructed to write a minimally valid get as a supplement to appointing a scribe to write a conventional get on his behalf. Most authorities, however, did not agree with the Chazon Ish’s approach, and it appears that his suggestion never was implemented.21The Chazon Ish’s proposal is not currently used even in cases in which a husband is located far from a beit din. The reason appears to be that implementing this system would cause pandemonium in get administration, as the Chazon Ish himself indicates. A pillar of get administration is that a get may be executed only under the supervision of a highly trained and recognized rabbinical authority. Executing a get in the manner suggested by the Chazon Ish leaves uneducated Jews with the impression that a get may be conducted even in the absence of such supervision and that one may even deviate from the venerated text of the get.
כ״ג
23Furloughs
כ״ד
24The second major hurdle faced by poskim during World War II was that since methods of transportation had improved, soldiers were given furloughs during which they would visit their families for a week or more.22The Chatam Sofer (Teshuvot Chatam Sofer E.H. 2:58) grapples with a situation in which a soldier who had divorced his wife with an unconditional get returned home on furlough. The husband returned to the army (without issuing a second get) and eventually became missing in action. The Chatam Sofer permitted the wife to remarry, asserting that the couple did not intend to remarry during the furlough, as they were under the mistaken impression that their original marriage was still in effect (when, in fact, it had been dissolved by the first get). This posed an enormous problem, since if a husband and wife are secluded (mityacheid) after the scribe, witnesses, and agent are appointed, the appointments are rendered invalid (Shulchan Aruch E.H. 149:7; see the Beit Shmuel and Vilna Gaon thereupon). Rav Henkin (ad. loc.) writes that this problem was taken exceedingly seriously by the American poskim, to the extent that they considered the possibility of not encouraging wartime gittin. In fact, Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinsky (in a letter printed in Teshuvot Heichal Yitzchak E.H. 2:36) writes that the practice in Vilna was to have Jewish soldiers who returned from furloughs issue appointments of the scribe, witnesses, and agent a second time before returning to the army.
כ״ה
25The poskim sought to solve this problem in various manners. Rav Abramsky referred to the Re’eim (cited in the Kenesset Hagedolah 148:3 and Ba’eir Heiteiv E.H. 148:2), who essentially states that the concern of seclusion with one’s wife canceling authorizations to execute a get does not apply to a situation in which the appointments were issued with the intention of preventing the wife from becoming an agunah. Rav Herzog (Teshuvot Heichal Yitzchak E.H. 2:41) added a clause to the appointments in which the soldier declares that even if he returns home and is secluded with his wife, he does not cancel the appointments of the scribe, witnesses, and agent. Rav Henkin sought to send documents with soldiers so that they could reissue appointments of the scribe, witnesses, and agent before a beit din upon returning to the army after furlough.
כ״ו
26Israel’s War of Independence
כ״ז
27Dramatically lower numbers of married soldiers in the Israeli War of Independence signed authorizations to write gittin to avoid women becoming agunot.23Rav Herzog (Teshuvot Heichal Yitzchak E.H. 1:2), in his introduction to his rulings regarding the agunot of the missing defenders of Kfar Etzion in the War of Independence, writes that the Chief Rabbinate made great efforts to ensure that every soldier signed get-authorization documents (as was done during World War II) but that in most cases such authorizations were not signed due to factors within the Israeli military. Rav Herzog therefore writes, “And we are vindicated from Hashem and from Israel.” In that war, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) issued orders for soldiers to sign get authorizations to avoid agunot. However, the Chief Rabbi of the Israel Defense Forces, Rav Shlomo Goren (Teshuvot Meishiv Milchamah 3 p. 60-61), records that commanders in the fledgling IDF vigorously opposed the signing of such documents, arguing that the toll on the morale of the soldiers was too great to justify their widespread usage. In addition, soldiers refused to issue such orders due to concern that the government would not support their widows in case of death, as it would claim that the couple divorced. Rav Goren notes that the get authorizations would have been signed by soldiers only if they were ordered to do so as a military command with serious punishments for those who did not comply. Rav Goren believes that such compulsion would have invalidated the gittin, since a get issued under coercion is invalid (Shulchan Aruch E.H. 134:7-8).24For a more thorough discussion of the parameters of this rule, see Gray Matter 1 pp. 3-7. Rav Goren records that he presented this concern to a special meeting of the Council of the Chief Rabbinate headed by Rav Herzog and his Sephardic counterpart, Rav Ben Zion Uzziel, and the council concurred with Rav Goren’s ruling. Rav Shlomo Yosef Zevin (L’or Hahalachah p. 77), however, notes that such gittin would appear to be valid, since Halachah mandates a husband to issue a get under such circumstances and may be coerced to do so (see Teshuvot Harosh 43:13 and Shulchan Aruch E.H. 154:9).25The Shulchan Aruch mandates that a beit din coerce a husband to give a get in a case where he is compelled to leave his place of residence due to safety concerns.. He cites the Teshuvot Maharsham (3:7) and the Teshuvot Oneg Yom Tov as support for his approach.26Rav Zevin notes, though, that Teshuvot Oneg Yom Tov did not authorize coercion if the couple married after the husband already was drafted into the army, since the wife entered the marriage accepting that he would be going out to war (based on Rama E.H. 154:1 and Beit Shmuel 154:2).
כ״ח
28Nonetheless, the IDF did not compel soldiers to sign get authorizations, following the ruling of the Chief Rabbinate.27Rav Goren describes the extreme lengths he went to in order to help the agunot of the Israeli War of Independence. He writes that he obtained special permits (facilitated by the ceasefire commission) from the enemy states to enter enemy territory to painstakingly inspect the battlefields (such as Latrun, Gush Etzion, and Jenin) and interview enemy soldiers and Arab shepherds and thereby piece together the evidence to permit the agunot to remarry. Rav Goren states that it took years for sufficient evidence to be amassed in order to resolve the plight of the agunot (as well as to bury the bodies of the soldiers left in the battlefield behind enemy lines). Today, the IDF certainly does not compel soldiers to sign such documents, and Rav David Eisen, a chaplain in the Israel Defense Forces, informs me that this topic is not part of the training course of the IDF rabbinate. He also told me that before he went into combat in the Second Lebanon War of 2006, the topic of authorizing a get was not broached at all. A new reason not to sign such documents is the reduced risk of a woman being rendered an agunah, as technological breakthroughs such as DNA identification28See Gray Matter 2 pp. 122-123 and our later chapter about the admissibility of DNA evidence in beit din for an elucidation of the debate regarding how much credence is given to DNA evidence in the context of agunot. and satellite surveillance greatly enhance the IDF’s ability to monitor the whereabouts and possible death of its soldiers. We should note that the risk unfortunately has not entirely been eliminated. A tragic example is captured Israeli aviator Ron Arad, missing (as of this writing) since 1986. His wife, unfortunately, remains an agunah at the present time.
כ״ט
29Rav Eisen informs me that the official policy of the IDF rabbinate for many years has been not to encourage signing such authorizations due to concern for morale. Rav Eisen, though, informs me that quite a few rabbis in the IDF rabbinate seek to change this policy, as they believe that there are ways to conduct such authorizations without undermining morale. They suggest that such authorizations be done immediately before battle at the same time that soldiers sign for special life insurance coverage. Indeed, Rav J. David Bleich (Contemporary Halakhic Problems I:154) criticizes the IDF for not conducting such get authorizations due to concern for morale.
ל׳
30The Six Day War – Rav Waldenberg and Rav Feinstein
ל״א
31Although enthusiasm for the signing of authorizations to write a get diminished, individuals continued to authorize the writing and delivery of gittin in specific circumstances. For example, a soldier came to Rav Eliezer Waldenberg (Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer 11:90) at the Jerusalem beit din in the weeks before the Six Day War to execute a get before he left for a dangerous mission in enemy territory. He insisted that his wife not be aware of this authorization in order not to unduly alarm her. The appointments of scribe, witnesses, and agent could not occur immediately before he left on the mission, since he might be summoned to duty at a moment’s notice.
ל״ב
32The only manner in which the news of the authorization could be withheld from the wife was for the husband to return home until he was summoned to service and continue living a normal married life. Rav Waldenberg was faced with the quandary of whether he could permit the authorization under such circumstances. In the end, he did permit the soldier to make the authorization, despite the fact that the beit din knew that he would return to his wife before leaving for his mission. Rav Waldenberg based his ruling on the aforementioned lenient approach of the Re’eim and Rav Abramsky.
ל״ג
33Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe E.H. 4:111), in a relatively brief responsum written in 1967, mere weeks before the beginning of the Six-Day War and during the Vietnam War, presented a new variation of how to conduct a wartime get. Offering a combination of the approaches previously outlined, his protocol involved the husband appearing before a competent beit din right before leaving for the army and handing a conditional get to his wife that would take effect in case he died or was considered missing. Rav Moshe adds, though, that the husband should also appoint anyone who sees his signature to serve as a scribe, witness, or agent to deliver an additional get to his wife in case the get he handed her became invalidated. This apparently authorizes the beit din to order the execution of another get in case the husband returns on furlough and thereby potentially invalidates the first get.29It seems that Rav Moshe’s logic is that in case the first get is possibly invalidated during a furlough, another get can be written, and in case the replacement get is not valid (as per the aforementioned objections of the Chazon Ish), the original get might remain valid despite the husband’s seclusion with his wife during the furlough.
It is interesting to note that Rav Moshe does not record the name of the person to whom he addressed this teshuvah. It is not clear whether Rav Moshe was directing Israeli poskim preparing for the Six Day War or the American poskim who were dealing with soldiers leaving for service in Vietnam.
It is interesting to note that Rav Moshe does not record the name of the person to whom he addressed this teshuvah. It is not clear whether Rav Moshe was directing Israeli poskim preparing for the Six Day War or the American poskim who were dealing with soldiers leaving for service in Vietnam.
ל״ד
34Conclusion
ל״ה
35We have seen the great lengths to which poskim of old and of the twentieth century went to avoid women becoming agunot as a result of wars. Although such gittin are uncommon today, they are not unheard of30Rav Yonah Reiss reports that the Beth Din of America occasionally has executed appointments of scribes, witnesses, and agents to perform gittin for husbands leaving for the war in Iraq. and might be advisable in certain non-military circumstances, such as if a husband is undergoing risky surgery. In such a case, a competent beit din should be consulted to determine which of the options outlined should be used to administer the get and to oversee its execution.
ל״ו
36Moreover, rabbis today should reinstitute the policy for all married soldiers to authorize a get before leaving for combat. After all, this involves simply reinstating a practice that was common even as late as the first half of the twentieth century. Otherwise, the suffering of women such as the wife of Ron Arad is compounded by their inability to renew their lives and remarry.