Rabbi Herzfeld of the National Synagogue has petitioned the House Ethics Committee to discipline a House staffer who appears to be recalcitrant as to one of the finer points of Jewish law. The full text of the letter can be found here and is worth a look. My instinct is to say that once you have said this:
Mr. Friedman’s refusal to provide Ms. Epstein with a get has been widely recognized as abusive. Several individuals and organizations within the Jewish community have spoken out against Mr. Friedman’s actions. For example, the rabbi at the synagogue where Mr. Friedman used to worship (he is now barred from worshipping there) has condemned Mr. Friedman’s actions by encouraging his congregation to shun Mr. Friedman. A D.C. rabbinical court has issued a non-binding directive requiring Mr. Friedman to provide Ms. Epstein with a get. The Organization for the Resolution of Agunot, a nationally-respected organization with 3,000 members, has spoken out against Mr. Friedman, stating that “get-refusal is not just a religious matter, but an issue of domestic abuse. [Mr. Friedman] continues to cruelly control [Ms. Epstein’s] life and constrict her freedom.”
…there really isn’t much left to say. The Jewish community has spoken on the issue, and if Mr. Friedman continues in his obstinacy, then they ought to act as it appears they have: shunning. I would also assume that someone within the community has, or ought to have, the authority to resolve the matter in accordance with Jewish law in such a way that Friedman’s ex-wife can get her “get,” and Mr. Freidman can be disciplined accordingly, especially if this matter does rise to the level of “abuse,” which does strike me as an overreach.
And, of course, there is the issue of the relationship between civil law and ecclesiastical law when it come to marriage. But I would warn Rabbi Herzfeld of the many pitfalls involved in getting the US Congress to resolve this matter for them, for it seems unlikely then that the Congress could find any reason not to interfere in the religious lives of those who work there. Given the general assault on religious liberty taking place in this country (see O. Carter Snead’s recent essay in First Things) I’m inclined to find such petitioning as ill-advised at best.
The tendency to resolve what are fundamentally communal issues by resorting to authorities outside the community can only be regarded as a deep pathology with all sorts of negative consequences. If the Jewish religious leaders want Mr. Friedman to comply on these matters, they ought to take care of it themselves.