The suffering of an agunah—a “chained” wife whose husband refuses to grant a get—is not only a personal tragedy but a communal and halachic crisis.
While much attention is rightly focused on the recalcitrant husband, far less scrutiny is directed at the network of advisors, advocates, or “mentors” who enable and prolong this refusal.
Raising awareness about these actors is essential, both ethically and within the framework of halacha.
Halacha is unambiguous that a man who is obligated to give a get should not withhold it as leverage. The Mishnah (Ketubot 77a) and subsequent Gemara establish circumstances under which a husband may be compelled to divorce.
Rambam codifies this principle forcefully: “כופין אותו עד שיאמר רוצה אני” (“we compel him until he says ‘I am willing’”) (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Gerushin 2:20). The Rambam explains that coercion is justified because, at root, a Jewish man wishes to fulfill the commandments; refusal is seen as a distortion that must be corrected.
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 154:21) similarly rules that where halacha mandates divorce, coercion is appropriate.
Even in cases where formal coercion is debated among poskim, there is broad consensus that using the get as a bargaining chip for unrelated concessions—financial, custodial, or otherwise—is a distortion of the halachic process. Many contemporary rabbinic authorities have condemned such behavior as a form of extortion (see, for example, rulings discussed in Piskei Din Rabbaniyim and modern responsa literature addressing get refusal).
Against this backdrop, the role of “mentors” who advise husbands to withhold a get for leverage becomes deeply problematic.
These individuals often present themselves as offering strategic or halachic guidance, but in practice they facilitate ongoing harm.
By encouraging delay tactics, conditioning the get on extraneous demands, or exploiting procedural complexities, they directly undermine the halachic imperative to end the marriage when required.
This dynamic is often reinforced through a pattern recognizable as DARVO—Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.
The get refuser (and sometimes his advisors) may deny the legitimacy of the wife’s claims, attack her character or motives, and then recast the husband as the true victim—portraying him as coerced, defamed, or unfairly treated. This inversion not only obscures the halachic obligation at stake but also shifts communal sympathy away from the agunah, further entrenching her isolation.
Such rhetoric stands in tension with core halachic and ethical principles. The Torah’s repeated injunction against causing suffering (ona’ah), alongside the general prohibition of abusing legal mechanisms for unjust gain, should alert us to the moral gravity of prolonging a woman’s inability to remarry.
When advisors enable this behavior, they are not neutral parties; they are participants in sustaining injustice.
Raising awareness about these “mentors” is therefore not about vilification, but about accountability.
Communities must recognize how informal networks of advice can perpetuate get refusal, even when formal batei din seek resolution.
Greater transparency, education about the halachic boundaries of negotiation, and communal refusal to legitimize coercive bargaining can help realign practice with principle.
Ultimately, the halachic system provides tools to resolve these situations and insists on the dignity and rights of both parties.
When those tools are subverted—especially with the guidance of others—it becomes a communal responsibility to speak clearly and act decisively.
Silence, in such cases, risks becoming complicity.
Writing by Dr. Dannielle Blumenthal 