A unique event at Bais Abraham Congregation Sunday evening urged the signing of “post-nuptial” agreements as a way to symbolically highlight the problem of Jewish women whose husbands refuse to grant a halachic divorce.

“This epidemic of recalcitrant husbands has caused an enormous amount of distress,” said Rabbi Yona Reiss, Av Beit Din of the Chicago Rabbinical Council’s Beth Din Zedek. “It also has brought a terrible stain upon the integrity and beauty of our community. We owe it to ourselves and our religion to make sure that there is no such thing.”

Reiss’s presentation examining the legal and religious aspects of Jewish divorce was the centerpiece of the weekend’s event, which kicked off with the rabbi’s lecture and continued with music and food downstairs at the University City shul. Dozens of married couples gathered before notaries to sign binding agreements that stated should their marriage dissolve, they would agree to a resolution by the Chicago Beth Din, which obligates the husband to pay at least $150 to his spouse for each day he refuses to grant her a get, or Jewish divorce.

Such refusals have long been a problem in the Jewish community. Known as agunot, or “chained women,” many wives are left in marital limbo for years by spouses who use their veto over the religious divorce process as leverage in matters of alimony, child custody or division of assets.

Sunday’s signing of post-nuptial contracts, which was also co-sponsored by Nusach Hari B’nai Zion and Young Israel, was an attempt to bring the issue to a wider audience and promote the prevalence of “pre-nup” agreements. 

Bais Abraham’s Rabbi Hyim Shafner said he hoped Jewish spiritual leaders would soon insist on such a contract as a standard before performing a wedding ceremony.

“I think if the rabbis of the Talmud lived today, they’d be 100 percent behind getting all of the Jews to sign a document that makes sure women have as much power as possible in getting a Jewish divorce,” he said.

Rori Picker Neiss, a New Yorker who moved to St. Louis and joined Bais Abraham in August, called the agunot issue an “embarrassing problem.” 

“The fact that we have women in our community who are suffering because of their religion and religious law and that we haven’t done everything that we can to either solve or prevent it is a huge shame on the community,” said Neiss, who wrote a Jan. 8 commentary on the subject for the Jewish Light. 

She noted that sometimes the issue can turn violent. Late last year, the New York Jewish Week reported on a bizarre case in which three rabbis were arrested as part of an FBI sting for allegedly using physical coercion to pressure reluctant men into granting divorces. According to the paper, authorities contend that beatings and even electrical shock were used to obtain gets. In 2011, a New Jersey rabbi and his wife were accused of kidnapping and threatening the life of a man to induce his assent. 

During his presentation, Reiss, who is also an attorney, said that force is not a halachically acceptable means of acquiring a get, which must be freely given. However, he noted that some have suggested “distancing measures” — essentially a form of shunning by the community — as one means of gaining consent. “Our model of marriage is that we don’t hold people hostage,” he said. 

Unfortunately, he said, sometimes community members not only don’t discourage the practice, they advocate for it. He recalled one case in which a scribe made an error in writing the get. Everyone was exhausted and the parties went home agreeing to redo the document the following day. However, that night friends convinced the man to withhold his consent in order to obtain better arrangements from his wife on other matters in court. The single night’s delay caused the process to drag on for two more years.

“So whenever I have a situation in the rabbinical courts where a scribe gets tired I tell him, ‘I don’t care, we’re going to keep on going until five in the morning if necessary until you get the get right’ because if you don’t do the get right away…sometimes that’s going to create an agunah situation,” he said.

Reiss said a get should never be used as a bargaining chip in court. He noted that the manner in which Jewish law describes the issue of divorce shows that it is viewed very much as a routine, if an unpleasant, fact of life.

“I would submit that the reason the Torah describes it in this fashion is because the giving of a get is supposed to be matter of fact,” he said. “It’s supposed to be something that just happens as a matter of course when a marriage doesn’t work out.”

Reiss said that the Jewish prenuptial agreement is a reliable solution to the problem. Essentially a binding form of arbitration, it compels the couple to show up in rabbinical court and, so far, the document has been upheld in the secular courts.

He said that in the end, it helps both parties. Reiss remembered the story of a man who insisted on signing a prenuptial contract. He was so proud of the fact he had it read under the chuppah. Two years later, the marriage failed and his attorney urged him not to give a get but he was already committed.

“Ultimately, this was good not only for the wife but it was good for the husband because what it did was to protect him from his own worst inclinations and enable him to act as ethically as he had aspired to be at the time of his marriage,” Reiss said.

Annabelle Chapel of Chesterfield said she was happy to come and sign the post-nup document with her husband Ken. “I’m very fortunate. I’m going to be married 60 years,” said Annabelle, who attends Traditional Congregation. “But there are women who are not so fortunate and it is not fair that they are held hostage. This is a way of showing solidarity.” 

Ken Chapel chuckled when asked why he was signing.

“I was told to do it,” he joked with a smile.

“Fortunately, my wife and I don’t need it but it is an important issue,” he added, more seriously. “We want to be upfront about it. We’re telling all our children and telling our friends they should sign one.”

Alan Templeton of University City was there to sign with Bonnie, his wife of 44 years. He said that in a divorce, people may act rashly. “The emotions can carry you away,” said the 66-year-old. “This is a way of protecting not only the woman but the man from his own worst instincts. It’s a way of making the marriage stronger in showing that we trust each other.”

Reiss noted that the contract is an affirmation of matrimony, not a destruction of it.

“The purpose of the discussion today is not to get everyone to sign post-nuptial agreements so you all go out and get divorced,” he said. “The purpose is to provide for a greater feeling of security and sanctity and mutual respect within the marital relationship.”