The Corona period brought to our lives a flood of numbers, and with them also the understanding, that by selecting and manipulating the data presented to the public it is possible to produce an alternative image to the existing reality. For example, let's say that for the purpose of examining the extent of the severity of the coronary heart disease, the Ministry of Health will choose to publish only data on the number of respirators connected to Acmo devices in intensive care units in hospitals. And if we go a step further, let's also say that due to policy considerations, the Ministry of Health has limited the number of acoustic devices intended for corona patients in each hospital to a maximum of 5 devices, and not only did it count and publish the number of corona patients according to the number of breathable patients connected to acoustic devices.
There is no doubt that the day after the publication, the corona deniers came out with huge headlines: "The number of corona patients is smaller than ever", "there are almost no corona patients in the State of Israel", "the corona plague is behind us, the treatment has proven itself".
Was the public really convinced by these headlines?
Would manipulation of pre-dictated numbers according to definitions that do not reflect factual reality have succeeded in working for the public?
So what does not work with the corona, for some reason definitely works when it comes to the phenomenon of refusal to divorce.
Every year the rabbinical courts publish the number of those who refuse a divorce according to their definition, and the headlines are celebrated.
This also happened last Wednesday during a discussion in the Knesset's Constitution Committee, when the administration of the courts published data on the number of those who refuse to divorce, by definition, which does not take into account thousands of cases in advance.
And I will detail.
The definition of the courts for refusing a divorce, as presented in the committee, is conditional on three conditions - first, the court is required to rule on a divorce or coercion.
Second, it is required that a date be set for arranging a divorce, and finally - it is required that the refusing litigant did not attend the hearing.
By this definition, women's organizations can really put the keys on the table and look for a new challenge, as it produces a reality in which the number of cases of divorce refusal is so limited that there is no justification for taking the phenomenon seriously.
Refusal to divorce, Photo: Dudi Vaknin
But is it really so correct to examine the extent of the phenomenon of refusal to divorce? The answer to this lies in a prominent and significant figure that was also placed on the committee table, which tells a different story. This refers to a figure according to which, even according to the records of the tribunal's management, there are between 2,000 and 3,000 divorce cases that last for more than two years. It should be emphasized - refers only to divorce cases that do not discuss alimony, property or custody, only divorce. What happens in those cases? Does anyone think there is a justification for pulling a divorce case for such a long time? Rabbeinu Yeruham thought that a year of conflict was enough to put an end to a failed marriage, and even the aggravated Garage Pelagie - is talking about a year and a half. So two years? Does anyone think it is reasonable to delay a divorce for such a long time? They are generally counted under the definition of refusal to divorce, because they do not provide a judgment for affirmation or coercion, thus creating a manipulative circle of data that is limited in the first place to a narrow definition, which does not reflect the facts and reality on the ground.
At the end of the day, I sincerely hope that this time we will not all fall into this pit again, which is so easy to get sucked into, but will take a good look at the data and learn their true meaning.
2000-3000 couples delayed in their lives for more than two years, are not a trivial matter, and are the real face of a difficult phenomenon, which, unfortunately, still exists in full force.
Denial deniers, like Corona deniers, know how to glow in the data, and draw from them erroneous conclusions that are detached from reality.
My friends and I in the women's organizations who know the reality on the ground, know that it is still too early to put the keys on the table, and prefer to invest the efforts in increasing the number of Acmo devices alongside continuing to supply oxygen to thousands of others who want not to reach the end.
The author is an attorney and claims to be a rabbi on behalf of the Yad LaIsha organization from the Or Torah Stone network, which represents agunot and those who refuse a divorce.