In 1975, Rabbi Emanuel Rackman announced plans to convene a new type of beis din, which would annul marriages of women whose husbands refused to give gittin. Rabbi Rackman posited that the Talmudic axiom as expressed by Reish Lakish of “Tav lemeisav tan du milemeisav armelu” (a woman prefers to be married [even to a less desirable husband] than to not be married [lit. “to be a widow”] – Kiddushin 7a, 41a, Yevamos 118b, Kesubos 75a, Bava Kama 111a), which serves as a chazakah (type of halachic basis) in various situations against discontinuing a marriage, no longer applies in modern times, when women’s attitudes have changed. By doing away with this axiom, Rabbi Rackman planned to be able to annul various marriages without requiring a get.
Rav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik of RIETS strongly condemned the proposed Rackman endeavor, declaring in a public address that tav lemeisav tan du milemeisav armelu is an eternal chazakah in halacha, reflective of the essence of a woman’s personality, and that by trying to undo such axioms, one will destroy halacha as we know it and render the entire Seder Noshim in the Gemara irrelevant:
“(N)ot only the halachos, but also the chazakos that chachmei Chazal have introduced are indestructible. We must not tamper, not only with the halachos, but even with the chazakos, for the chazakos of which Chazal spoke rest not upon transient psychological behavioral patterns, but upon permanent ontological principles rooted in the very depth of the human personality, in the metaphysical human personality, which is as changeless as the heavens above. Let us take, for example, the chazakah that I was told about: the chazakah ‘tav lemeisav tan du milemeisav armelu’ has absolutely nothing to do with the social and political status of women in antiquity. This chazakah is based not upon sociological factors, but upon a verse in Bereishis…
“(T)o speak about changing the halachos of Chazal is, of course, at least as nonsensical as discussions about communism at the Republican National Convention. It is discussing self-destruction, a method of self-destruction and suicide…
“If this recommendation is accepted, and I hope it will not be accepted, but if it is accepted, then there will be no need for a get. ‘Ha’isha niknis b’shalosh derochim’ (Kiddushin 2a)… We will be able to cross out this Mishnah, this halacha. Every rabbi will suspend the kiddushin… Do you expect to carry on the mesorah under such circumstances? I hope that those who are present will join me in simply objecting to such symposia and to such discussion…
“This is why the Rambam says that talmud Torah is identical to kabbolas ol Malchus Shomayim, and to speak about halacha as a fossil, Rachmana litzlon, is ridiculous. Because we know, those who study halacha know, it is a living, dynamic discipline that was given to man in order to redeem him and to save him. We are opposed to shinuyim (changes), of course, but chiddush is certainly the very essence of halacha. There are no shinuyim in halacha, but there are great chiddushim. But the chiddushim are within the system, not from the outside. You cannot psychologize halacha, historicize halacha, or rationalize halacha, because this is something foreign, something extraneous.”
This powerful address totally silenced any further discussion of the Rackman bein din proposal. (In 1997, 22 years later, Rabbi Rackman did convene such a beis din to annul marriages, but no one in the Orthodox world accepted it.)
Fast forward decades later, as history repeats itself, but this time with a much messier situation:
Although it is basically an unknown entity in the broader Orthodox world, the International Beit Din (formerly called “The International Beit Din for Agunot” and now commonly referred to by the initials “IBD”) has been a horror story in the inner world of botei din and poskim. And despite some very rough experiences in its early years, IBD has now recreated itself and is forging ahead with more confidence than ever before.
Let’s take a look at IBD and try to appreciate the situation, as it is crucial for the frum community to be aware of this organization and its activities.
In 2014, three rabbis announced the formation of a new beis din that would work to solve the agunah problem. While it is of course extremely meritorious and a mitzvah of inestimable worth and import to alleviate the plight of agunos, this new beis din adopted quite unconventional methods, for rather than pursuing halachically valid ways to persuade the husband to give a get when the situation warranted it, IBD resorted to declaring marriages to be invalid without the use of a get. Although IBD also used and continues to use gittin in many cases, its invalidation of marriages without a get sent shockwaves throughout the world of mainstream botei din.
During the summer of 2015, following a private meeting with IBD, a strongly worded public letter condemning IBD was written and signed by Rav Hershel Schachter of RIETS and was co-signed by Rav Gedaliah Dov Schwartz, Rav Nota Greenblatt, Rav Avrohom Union and Rav Mendel Senderovic, leading roshei beis din and mesadrei gittin across the US. (The original letter, in Hebrew, is available at https://www.torahweb.org/torah/docs/ibd-machaa.html. An English translation was later published in The Jewish Link.)
Here are some salient parts of the letter:
“A few months ago, the International Beit Din for Agunot was established. Approximately two months ago, I reviewed a 23-page responsum in Hebrew written by a member of this beit din, on the subject of agency to write a divorce against a husband’s will, that is mistaken from beginning to end. Another four-page English responsum was shown to me, permitting an agunah to remarry due to invalid witnesses, based on the Ritva’s famous view. This is not the right path and not even the right city… I feel an obligation to object because otherwise the public will assume that rabbinic silence implies agreement, and the students would see and establish this new approach permanently.
“It is a tremendous chutzpah that these three rabbis joined this beit din. Questions of this most serious nature—permitting a woman to remarry without a divorce—were brought to Rav Yitzchak Elchanan, after him to Rav Chaim Ozer, and in our time to Rav Moshe Feinstein, all of whom were recognized as the greatest of their generations. It is forbidden for average rabbis to involve themselves in these matters, because whoever does not understand the nature of marriages and divorces cannot be involved with them. In our generation, we present these questions to the few Torah scholars who have specialized in these laws and apprenticed under greats, and who therefore have a tradition about where to be lenient and where strict.
“I encourage my colleagues and students not to rely on any ruling from this beit din because they have no standing. I heard that one of the judges resigned and I asked the other two to also remove themselves in the future from this bad activity and to inform the public not to rely on the lenient rulings they already issued, since their entire approach is not according to the law.” (https://jewishlink.news/advising-against-the-use-of-the-international-beit-din-a-translated-letter-from-rabbi-hershel-schachter-shlita/)
Shortly thereafter, Rabbi Yaakov Sasson dissected one of the most novel and contested rulings of IBD, demonstrating that it was predicated upon a load of logical flaws and unwarranted assumptions, and that it was rife with blatant errors (https://www.torahmusings.com/2015/09/a-review-of-international-beit-din-case-105/).
Following the resignation of one member of IBD and condemnation of IBD by a few other well-known rabbis, things seemed to be quiet.
Then, in 2018, a woman from Borough Park somehow ended up contacting IBD about her bad marriage and her need to end it. IBD ruled that this woman could remarry without a get. Major Chassidishe poskim found out about the IBD’s ruling and declared that it was based on total misunderstanding and misapplication of halacha, and gross failure to investigate the facts. This was followed up by a very detailed public letter harshly condemning IBD for extremely faulty methodology and colossal lack of expertise, signed by 130 major rabbonim, including the dayanim of the Badatz of the Eidah Hachareidis (with Rav Moshe Shternbuch at the lead), the roshei yeshiva of Bais Medrash Govoah and of many other major American yeshivos, and preeminent poskim throughout the globe.
Then, in 2021, news broke of a couple undergoing divorce proceedings before the beis din of the Hisachdus Harabbonim (Satmar) in which the wife, instead of continuing with these proceedings, turned to IBD, who ruled that her marriage was invalid and she could remarry without a get. The Hisachdus beis din issued a strong public condemnation of IBD. This was followed by a similar public letter of condemnation by the Conference of Synagogue Rabbonim of Agudath Israel of America (https://agudah.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/11.10.21IBDKolKoreFINAL.pdf).
Since then, the head of IBD passed away and IBD’s other members left.
Where does IBD stand today?
Recently, IBD recreated itself with a large new staff and proactive initiatives to increase its activities throughout the frum world. And this summer it was revealed that IBD has greatly expanded its reach into Europe, with dozens of women in various European cities contacting IBD in a period of just a few days, according to a July 30 report in The Jewish Chronicle (London).
IBD claims that thus far, it has permitted 103 women to remarry without gittin (!), as it forges ahead and tries to spread the word about its purported ability to solve otherwise unsolvable agunah problems.
According to the IBD website, the current av beit din of IBD is Rabbi David Bigman, and the other two dayanim are Rabbi Ariel Holland and Rabbi Shuki Reich. While these rabbis may be knowledgeable, they are of course not the generation’s preeminent poskim who can take upon their shoulders the responsibility for novel and lenient rulings in the weightiest and most sensitive areas of halacha.
Managerial staff at IBD is affiliated with the Open Orthodox movement. This includes a woman with semicha from Maharat, the Open Orthodox rabbinical school for women, who serves as IBD’s Director of Public Education and Media, as well as a graduate of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (YCT), the Open Orthodox rabbinical school for men, who serves as IBD’s Director of the Institute for Agunah Research and Education. IBD’s executive director is likewise involved with the Open Orthodox movement. He is best known for his advocacy in favor of to’eivah marriage in Rhode Island.
The dayanim of IBD are an interesting bunch. Rabbi Shuki Reich serves as Rosh Beit Midrash at the Susi Bradfield Women’s Institute of Halakhic Leadership. This is an Israeli semicha-type program for women at Ohr Torah Stone, founded by Rabbi Shlomo Riskin.
Rabbi Ariel Holland is a rebbi at the Tekoa Yeshiva, founded and formerly headed by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz. Rabbi Holland is also a member of an alternative conversion organization that, as reported by the media, circumvents the geirus program of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate (https://forward.com/israel/319141/orthodox-rebels-challenge-rabbinate-on-marriage/).
Rabbi David Bigman, av beit din of IBD, serves as rosh yeshiva of Yeshivat Ma’ale Gilboa, a pluralistic Israeli yeshiva. Perhaps more notable is Rabbi Bigman’s radical and highly untraditional hashkafic approach, to put it mildly: Rabbi Bigman rejects the notion that the Torah is the Word of Hashem as dictated to Moshe Rabbeinu. In essays on a non-Orthodox Jewish website, Rabbi Bigman expresses heretical thoughts.
I will not this kefirah, but it is eminently clear that the av beit din of IBD maintains beliefs that the Rambam and our entire mesorah deem heretical. I have never before heard of someone who heads a beis din profess such horrible, non-Orthodox hashkafos, or anything close.
Whereas IBD used to post many of its (hair-raising) rulings on its website, and the rulings were thus open to critique, such as the critiques of Rabbi Sasson and others, IBD has since removed these rulings from the website. However, the IBD website now features expositions, written in Hebrew, on IBD’s halachic methods. Let’s take a brief look.
The first IBD exposition, on the topic of kiddushei ta’us (marriage entered into in error), cites two p’sokim that a spouse who is insane (“shoteh”) suffers from a mum gadol (major blemish), which can invalidate a marriage that was entered into when this condition existed but the wife was unaware of it at the time, as such a marriage would be a kiddushei ta’us. IBD extrapolates (writing “yeish makom lomar”) from this that a woman who is married to a man with borderline personality disorder (BPD) which was present but unknown to her before the marriage can remarry without a get according to those who would consider the marriage of a woman to a shoteh to be invalid as kiddushei ta’us, for just like with a shoteh, this woman cannot live in a marriage with a spouse who has borderline personality disorder, writes IBD. It is obviously a jump to assume that borderline personality disorder is of equal severity regarding kiddushei ta’us as shoteh, yet IBD has no problem making this leap. This questionable assertion is made by IBD in the weightiest area of halacha, with acute and eternal ramifications.
Another leap of dubious validity regarding a different situation is likewise made in the second IBD exposition on its website under the kiddushei ta’us category.
The IBD exposition entitled “Tav L’Meitav: It is better for a woman to remain in a marriage” deserves focus. This exposition was clearly written as an effort to dismiss Rav Soloveitchik’s strong objection to the invalidation of marriages/dispensing with the need for a get, in which tav lemeisav was the basepoint for Rav Soloveitchik’s position.
This IBD exposition attempts to minimize the axiom of tav lemeisav from all angles, watering it down to a mere sentimental saying with no halachic force: “…We do not find such a legal model (of tav lemeisav) in the Yerushalmi, and if it (tav lemeisav) were a known halachic axiom, it certainly would have appeared there. But rather, as stated (earlier), it (tav lemeisav) was merely a folk saying of women in Babylonia… Also, that which Rashi wrote (that tav lemeisav means that women prefer to be married to an inferior husband than to be unmarried, even if the role of the husband is only one of keeping her company – Rashi on Kiddushin 7a, 41a) is merely a description of a metaphor that women used to say, and Rashi definitely did not intend to convey that one can determine halacha based on it… It is clear that Rashi will concede that in all matters that are basic to maintaining the marriage according to the Torah, one can consider declaring the marriage invalid, so long as the matter affects the marriage in a direct way…” (p. 5 of IBD exposition “Tav L’Meitav: It is better for a woman to remain in a marriage”).
In order to appreciate the incorrectness of this all, let’s briefly look at the Gemara in Yevamos (118b). Ravina asked Rava: What is the halacha if a man is mezakeh a get to his wife (i.e., he appoints a shliach to receive a get on her behalf, without her knowledge) when an argument was raging between them? Do we say that since an argument was raging, the get is a zechus for her (i.e., something positive, and she would therefore have agreed to the appointment of a shliach to receive a get on her behalf had she been aware of it), or do we say that she nonetheless prefers the comfort of being married (and thus would not have consented to the appointment of a shliach to receive a get on her behalf)? Come and hear, for Reish Lakish declared, “Tav lemeisav tan du…” (meaning that the wife prefers to be married and would not have consented to the appointment of a shliach to receive a get on her behalf, despite being in the midst of an argument with her husband). The Tur (Even Ha’ezer 140) paskens in accordance with this Gemara in Yevamos that the husband cannot appoint a shliach to receive a get on behalf of his wife without her knowledge, even if an argument is raging between them at the time, and the Bais Yosef (ibid. d.h. Va’afilu) invokes this Gemara in Yevamos (ibid.) and the phrase “tav lemeisav” found there as the source for this halacha in the Tur and states that the Yerushalmi holds likewise. The Shulchan Aruch (Even Ha’ezer ibid. s. 5) similarly rules this way and includes in this p’sak the case of a husband who is mukeh shechin (smitten with boils – i.e., of a very undesirable appearance), which is the case mentioned in the Yerushalmi (Gittin 1:5), for we maintain that despite the husband’s very unappealing condition, the wife prefers to remain married and would not have consented to her husband’s appointing a shliach to receive a get on her behalf. The Rama (Even Ha’ezer ibid.) cites opinions that this rule might even apply in cases where the husband is a mumar (apostate) or is forbidden to the wife—reflective of the immense gravity of tav lemeisav.
IBD’s assertion that tav lemeisav is not a known halachic axiom is glaringly contradicted by the above-cited words of the Tur, Beis Yosef and Shulchan Aruch! It is scary that an institution calling itself a beis din and ruling in the weightiest of matters seems to be unaware of this halacha and its source.
Regarding the IBD exposition’s assertion that tav lemeisav cannot be a known halachic axiom due to its (purported) absence from the Yerushalmi, IBD must not have seen the Tosafos HaRosh in Gittin (11b d.h. Chozer), which explains the Yerushalmi’s case of the husband who is mukeh shechin not being able to appoint a shliach to receive a get for his wife without her knowledge to be a function of tav lemeisav. The Me’iri (Yevamos 118b d.h. Zehu) writes likewise, as does the Sheyarei Korban (Yerushalmi ibid. d.h. Less Loch). And since the Shulchan Aruch incorporates the mukeh shechin case of the Yerushalmi into its ruling about the couple who was arguing, which the Gemara (Yevamos 118b) specifically predicates upon the axiom of tav lemeisav, and the Beis Yosef already stated that the mukeh shechin case of the Yerushalmi is predicated upon tav lemeisav, it is eminently clear that one cannot declare that tav lemeisav is absent from the Yerushalmi! The falsity of IBD’s claim that tav lemeisav cannot be a known halachic axiom due to its (purported) absence from the Yerushalmi is quite obvious.
It is eminently clear that despite the IBD expositions citing a plethora of mekoros (halachic sources), which might mislead those lacking adequate knowledge to be overly impressed and believe that IBD has proven its mastery of these areas of p’sak and that IBD’s approaches must be scholarly and correct, the truth is that the mekoros invoked in these IBD expositions do not at all prove the inventive points that the expositions attempt to make, and the actual proof for IBD’s positions is patently lacking. Dubious logic and novel assumptions are at the basis of IBD’s methodology, while the dozens of halachic citations mustered totally fail to state the points that the IBD expositions seek to establish. The Ramban speaks of a “chamor nosei seforim,” one with loads of Torah texts but a failure to properly work through and understand them.
In addition to its recent major expansion into Europe, IBD has been on a public relations blitz in the US, including a major symposium at NYU Law School on May 21, and the regular publication of glossy newsletters, in which unconventional, lenient rulings are disseminated as legitimate, scholarly piskei halacha that serve to legitimize IBD’s very problematic endeavors in an attempt to impress those without adequate knowledge.
We face a situation in which an organization is basically feeding off people’s ignorance and is illegitimately assuming a mantle of leadership in the most consequential areas of halacha, which are normally reserved for the most towering gedolei Yisroel. A true churban is being created. The more that the tzibbur knows about the highly unacceptable practices of IBD, the better off we all are.
