An item in today's Israeli news leaves me with very mixed feelings.As I have discussed in previous writings, perhaps the most troubling situation in Jewish law is the "'agunah", the "chained" woman, whose husband either is unwilling, or unable, to grant his wife a divorce, despite the fact that he is no longer acting as her husband. That the man must give a bill of divorce into the woman's hand, is a clear Torah law (Deuteronomy 24:1). No rabbi or Beit Din has the authority to change that. Tragically, it has led to horrible situation of extortion, or just plane vindictive behavior (I'll give you a get when you give me one million dollars). In the past, it has also brought about the formation of "goon squads", that would "convince" the husband to grant the "get" (Bill of Divorce) by means of fists and brass knuckles. In the last few years, the civil authorities in the U.S. has cracked down on this, and several rabbis now sit in prison as a result. About twenty five years ago, a maverick American rabbi, Marvin Antelman, came up with a possible solution. Since one may do a favor for someone without their knowledge (I can decide unilaterally that I owe you $100, I can't unilaterally decide that you owe me $100), a man who is not acting like a husband, providing his wife with financial support, shelter, and sexual satisfaction, would be required to give his wife a "get". He's not doing that, then a Beit Din can, and should, act on his behalf and give the woman a "get". They would, in effect, be doing him a favor. Rabbi Antelman formed his own Beit Din, and granted divorces to many 'agunot. He even flew to Israel, and performed these ceremonies in the U.S. Embassy, thus avoiding arrest. He actually found a precedent for these actions in the annals of Moroccan Jewry, where this was practiced three hundred years ago. The vast majority of rabbis, both in the U.S. and Israel, denounced this maverick, declaring these divorces invalid. However, little by little, a number of rabbis from Orthodoxy's Left Wing began to accept the idea. As I have previously written, there is a not insignificant sector of Israeli rabbis who are openly challenging the Chief Rabbinate's ultra Right Wing policies, most famously in the area of conversions. But this has now spilled over into the area of divorce. A duly constituted rabbinic court in Safed (Tzefat) granted an 'agunah a "get", in the name of her husband who has been in a coma for several years, thus permitting her to remarry. Middle of the road and Right Wing rabbis were horrified, and they petitioned the Supreme Beit Din, headed by the Chief Rabbis of Israel, to invalidate this divorce. Before the Beit Din could issue an opinion, the woman's lawyers petitioned the High Court (secular) to not allow the Chief Rabbinate to speak, on the technicality that the petitioners were not parties to the case.Today, the High Court issued a ruling that the Chief Rabbi could not undo the decision, and must allow the decision of the lower rabbinic court to stand. So where are my mixed feelings? The Chief Rabbinate is given, by Israeli law, sole jurisdiction in matters of marital status, and in matters of personal identity (Is a person Jewish or not Jewish?). The High Court has essentially undone that jurisdiction. At the same time, it is becoming increasingly obvious to more and more people that the Chief Rabbinate is a body selected by a Knesset committee, on the basis of political deals. It no longer represents the approach of most religious Jews, let alone the views of most Israelis. However, the fact remains that secular, non religious, or even anti-religious, judges are making decisions about Torah and rabbinic law. This should be troubling to anyone who takes religion seriously. What if the U.S. Senate told me which prayer book I must use? On the other hand, what good is a discussion of political science, when a woman is doomed to a life of loneliness through no fault of her own? I have no answers. But I am troubled.