There has been significant discussion recently regarding the ongoing divorce and Gett (religious divorce) dispute between Adeena Kohn and Raphael (Raphi) Stein.

Because this case involves both international civil law and the sensitive matter of Agunah (chained women) advocacy, it is important to look at the facts from both sides.

1. How it Began: A Health Crisis

In August 2020, the family moved from Montreal to Monsey, NY, following Adeena’s hospitalization for acute postpartum psychosis.

The move was intended to provide Adeena with essential medical treatment and family support.

As her recovery progressed, she determined she could not return to Canada and filed for a civil divorce in New York in October 2021.

2. The Civil Legal Battle (The “Canada vs. NY” Dispute)

Raphael’s Perspective: Raphi argued that the move to the U.S. was temporary. He filed a federal petition under the Hague Convention, alleging “wrongful retention” of his children.

He maintained that Montreal was their “habitual residence” and that Adeena’s civil filing bypassed the proper jurisdictional channels.

The Court’s Ruling: The U.S. District Court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged a “wrongful retention” but ruled that the children were now “well-settled” in New York.

On October 6, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court officially denied Raphi’s petition, effectively ending the custody battle in favor of the children staying in New York.

3. The Religious Deadlock (The Gett Refusal)

While the civil courts have finished their work, the religious marriage remains.

The Seruv: The Beth Din of America (BDA) has issued a formal Seruv (order of contempt) against Raphael Stein.

This was issued because he reportedly failed to appear before the rabbinical court or provide a Gett unconditionally.

The “Bargaining Chip” Allegation: Advocacy groups, such as the Free Adeena campaign, allege that Raphi has attempted to use the Gett as leverage to change custody or financial terms—a practice strictly forbidden by Jewish law.

The Standing of the Parties:

Despite Raphi’s claim that Adeena “went to civil court first,” the BDA and major communal leaders have stood by Adeena.

In Jewish law, once a marriage is over, withholding a Gett is considered a form of abuse.

4. Why is this in the news now?

The case gained fresh momentum in early 2026 after a controversial podcast appearance by Raphi, which was later retracted following an outcry from the community.

Public pressure remains high, with thousands of people calling for an unconditional Gett to be granted so that Adeena can move on with her life.

The Bottom Line

Civilly: The highest courts in the U.S. have ruled that the children remain in New York. The parties are civilly divorced.

Religiously: Raphael Stein is currently under a Seruv for refusing to grant a religious divorce.

Status: Adeena remains an Agunah, unable to remarry or find closure, while the community continues to advocate for her freedom.

PART II. HALACHIC ANALYSIS

1. The Fundamental Requirement of Gett

In Jewish law, a marriage is only dissolved when the husband voluntarily delivers a bill of divorce (Gett) to his wife.

The Source: Deuteronomy 24:1 states: “He shall write for her a scroll of severance, place it in her hand, and send her from his house.”

Voluntary Intent: The Mishnah (Yevamot 14:1) clarifies that while a woman can be divorced against her will, a man can only divorce of his own free will (Retzon Chofshi).

The Caveat: However, the Rambam (Maimonides) in Hilchot Gerushin 2:20 famously rules that if a husband is halachically required to divorce but refuses, a Beth Din (rabbinical court) may apply pressure until he says “I want to.”

This is because every Jew fundamentally desires to do what is right; the refusal is viewed as a temporary “clouding” of that inner will.

2. The Halachic Mandate to Divorce

When a marriage is irreconcilable, particularly when the parties are civilly divorced and living apart, the husband’s refusal to grant a Gett becomes a violation of Jewish law.

Source: The Rema (Even HaEzer 154:21). The Rema discusses cases where a husband’s behavior or the state of the marriage necessitates a divorce.

Source: Rabbi Chaim Palagi (Chayim V’Shalom 2:112). He rules that if a couple has lived apart for a significant period (typically eighteen months) and there is no hope for reconciliation, the Beth Din must take active steps to compel the husband to grant the Gett to prevent the wife from being “chained.”

3. The Prohibition of Leverage (Extortion)

A central issue in this case is the allegation that the Gett is being used as a bargaining chip for custody or financial concessions.

Source: Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe, Even HaEzer 4:106). He ruled that using a Gett to extract money or rights that the husband is not entitled to under Halacha is extortion (Oness). He classifies such a man as a “thief” and a “murderer” of his wife’s future.

Source: Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 134. This section deals with “Me’useh” (coerced divorce). While a Gett given under improper pressure can be invalid, pressure applied to stop a husband from committing a sin (extortion/withholding a Gett) is considered valid.

4. The Seruv and Harchakot De’Rabbeinu Tam

Because the Beth Din of America issued a Seruv (contempt order) against Raphael Stein, specific communal sanctions are triggered.

Source: Rabbeinu Tam (Sefer HaYashar 24). To avoid the problem of a “forced Gett” (which would be invalid), Rabbeinu Tam instituted social distancing measures rather than physical force.

The “Harchakot” (Distancing): Codified by the Rema (Even HaEzer 154:21), these sanctions include:
Not counting the man in a Minyan.
Not calling him to the Torah (Aliyot).
Not speaking to him or hosting him.
Refraining from all business dealings with him.

Purpose: These are not meant to “force” him, but to say: “If you will not act like a member of the community by following the Beth Din, you may not enjoy the privileges of the community.”

5. The “Civil Court” Defense (Arkaot)

Raphael Stein has claimed that Adeena’s use of civil courts (the Hague Convention and NY divorce filings) justifies his refusal.

The Source: Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 26. This forbids Jews from litigating in secular courts (Arkaot) without permission.

Modern Responsa: The Beth Din of America and major contemporary poskim (decisors) have ruled that:
In matters of emergency (like child safety or international kidnapping disputes), civil intervention is often permitted.

Even if a woman violated the law of Arkaot, it never provides a halachic basis for the husband to withhold a Gett.

The Gett is an independent religious obligation to prevent the woman from becoming an Agunah.

Conclusion of Analysis

From the perspective of Halacha, once the Beth Din of America issued the Seruv, the legal status of the case became clear:

Raphael Stein is considered a Mesarev Le’Din (recalcitrant).

The Community has a halachic obligation to enforce the Harchakot (sanctions).

The Demand: The Gett must be given unconditionally, as using it for leverage in a custody dispute is considered halachically illegitimate.

FreeAdeena #AgunahAwareness #JusticeForAdeena

Note to Readers: Gett refusal is a serious communal issue. If you or someone you know is struggling with a similar situation, organizations like ORA (Organization for the Resolution of Agunot) provide resources and support.

Written with the help of AI.