In 2012, the Beth Din of America clearly outlined the Halacha: A party may not seek redress in civil court unless the opposing party has already refused an invitation to appear before a Beis Din.
In the Kohn v. Stein divorce case, Kohn filed for a civil divorce, and sought full custody, in October 2021, THEN RAN TO THE BEIS Din.
There is a difference of opinion about how these cases are handled.
According to a Torah-centric approach, the Beis Din should have told Kohn that she is out of luck unless the entire case was moved to the Beis Din and out of the civil court. THEY DID NOT.
The BDA takes a “centrist” position meaning they let her get away with this. Their approach is to let the civil courts handle the civil matters and deal only with the Gett (holding it until the civil case is closed).
Keep in mind that the BDA has no jurisdiction. The parties are from Montreal.
They issued a seruv against Stein anyway in June 2023, RUINING HIS STANDING IN THE JEWISH COMMUNITY.
Yes. The Av Beis Din and Director of the BDA, Willig and Weissman, used the full force and weight of their credibility against the party to the case who had Jewish law on his side.
Weissman says: “I am, very procedurally oriented.”
If you’re procedurally oriented why did you violate your own procedure?
More detail:
In cases like this, where a husband is summoned by the Beth Din of America (BDA) despite both parties living in Montreal, the issue isn’t just about the divorce—it’s about which court has the right to speak.
- The Jurisdictional Dispute
Under the laws of Choshen Mishpat, a defendant has the right to be sued in their own city (Holech Achar HaNitva).
Many authorities argue that a New York-based Beis Din has no jurisdiction over a Montreal resident when a local Beis Din is available.
By insisting on a Montreal venue, the husband is not “refusing” the process; he is asserting his halachic right to a local, proper forum.
- The Violation of Arkaos (Secular Courts)
The “Frum world” is deeply divided on how to handle a wife who bypasses the Beis Din to file for full custody and assets in civil court first.
While the BDA focuses on releasing the woman at all costs, many Haredi Poskim (like Rav Moshe Sternbuch and the Edah HaChareidis) take a firmer stance:
- The “Clean Hands” Doctrine: A person cannot violate the Torah’s strict prohibition against secular courts (Arkaos) and then demand the Beis Din’s help. By “sabotaging” the religious legal process, many believe she forfeits her claim to an immediate Gett.
- The Right to Defense: Authorities in Brooklyn, Lakewood, and Israel often argue that a husband is not a “refuser” if his conditions are fair. If he says, “I will give the Gett once the custody battle returns to a Beis Din,” many Dayanim refuse to issue a Seruv. They view the Gett as his only shield against a devastating secular ruling.
- The Risk of an Invalid Gett: There is a grave concern regarding Gett Me’useh (a coerced divorce). If a husband is pressured into giving a Gett while being “extorted” by an aggressive civil lawyer, the divorce itself may be halachically void.
- A Clash of Priorities
This isn’t just a legal fight; it’s a clash between two major values:
- The Centrist View: Prioritizes the prevention of Igun (chaining the woman), viewing the Gett as an independent religious right that cannot be used as a bargaining chip.
- The Haredi/Right-Wing View: Prioritizes the integrity of the Torah’s court system. They argue that the Beis Din should not be used as a “rubber stamp” for someone who has already chosen to litigate in a secular environment.
In this view, if the Beis Din lacks geographical jurisdiction and the wife is in violation of Arkaos, the husband has a halachic basis to decline the summons until the entire matter is brought before a proper, local Beis Din.
Citations:
Feit, Y. (2012). The prohibition against going to secular courts. The Journal of the Beth Din of America, (1), 30-32. https://jlaw.com/Articles/ProhibitionSecularCourts.pdf
18Forty. (2021, April 27). Shlomo Weissmann: The rabbinic will and Agunot [Audio podcast episode]. https://18forty.org/podcast/shlomo-weissmann-the-rabbinic-will-and-agunot/
Appendix to Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Stein v. Kohn, No. 24-7482 (U.S. June 24, 2025). https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-7482/363775/20250625094950710_20250625-094311-00000114-00003368.pdf
Researched and written with the help of AI.
Writing by Dr. Dannielle Blumenthal 