The Safed Rabbinical Court recently gave a woman a "get zikui" to permit her to receive a divorce from her husband who has been in a coma for seven years. See this article. The article describes it as "rare." What exactly is a get zikui and are there any recorded instances of it being used recently?

2 Answers 2



Rabbi Isaac Herczog discussed the concept, and rejected it. (Rabbi Hershel Schachter has discussed this in several lectures.)

"Zikui" works as follows. I want to gift someone a nice challah knife on shabbos, but it's best to avoid gifts on shabbos as it looks like a business transaction, so on Friday afternoon I say, "I'm sure Shmerel would want to receive this lovely challah knife, so I'll have my friend here pick it up on his behalf." Receiving on someone's behalf, when we assume they would like to receive it, is zikui. Another example would be if I set aside food in my apartment building for anyone in the building to use on shabbos -- this makes an eruv and allows everyone to carry. If I can't contact Shmerel in advance, I can generally assume "he'd like to be able to carry", and thus have him receive a share in this food.

The argument used here was: "he would want his wife to be free if she was chained to a vegetable for six years." (Or a similar argument, "he disappeared off at war; if he's still alive in some Hezbullah prison three years later, he would want his wife to be free now.") Herczog correctly predicted that if we allowed it for the husband who's disappeared, some rabbi would try this stunt for the husband who is right here and refusing to give his wife a Get, arguing that he'd really rather give one. (And as Rabbi Schachter tells it, sure enough, some "rabbi" started doing such Gittin in Israel -- he's unauthorized by the Israeli rabbinate and therefore could be arrested for this, so he does them at the US Embassy.)

As Rabbi Schachter explained, the fundamental problem with zikui is that it only works (at least in all the Talmudic precedents) in a passive way, to receive something. Giving a Get requires some very deliberate action.

The story of the vegetative husband (or similarly, one stricken with a severe psychological or neurological problem to the point he can't execute a Get) is truly tragic, but the halachic logic here seems shaky at best.

Rabbi JD Bleich addressed this long ago in Tradition 35:4.

Similarly, in cases of zakhin le-adam, the self-appointed agent need per- form only the physical act of kinyan; the requisite mental act is supplied by the person conveying title. In contradistinction, divesture of title always requires daat or intent on the part of the person transfering title. Accordingly, it has been argued that zekhiyyah, since it involves a self-designated agent, is available for physical acts but is not operative with regard to any act that requires a determinant mental state, e.g., conveyance of property or the granting of a get. ...

In none of those sources is there the slightest hint that signification of assent on the part of the husband may be dispensed with, much less so is there any intimation that a get can be executed in face of the husband's recalcitrance. Small wonder then that no recognized rabbinic authority has endorsed the expedient of get zikkuy as a remedy for the problem of the recalcitrant husband and not a few authorities have vociferously denounced such action as a charade that can only lead to increased instances of mamzerut.

  • 1
    But you also have the concept that when a husband gives in to communal sanctions and gives his agunah a get, "he wasn't coerced" because we presume that deep down he wants to do the right thing. How is that better? It would appear that we can have more insight. Into the good will intent of a man in a veggetative state than a donkey who gives in to the whip. Commented May 23, 2014 at 0:52
  • @BruceJames good will is not enough. If someone says [for whatever the reason] "I want to give a Get and hereby do so", it's valid. If someone takes no action, we're not empowered to do so on his behalf.
    – Shalom
    Commented May 23, 2014 at 1:16
  • We do appoint a trustee for an orphan child and act on what is in the child's best interests. The written Torah doesn't tell us we can; it was instituted out of necessity. The oral an written Torah says nothing of using physical evidence that a husband died to release an agunah, yet the rabbis accepted DNA evidence to release agunot after 9/11 beause of necessity. SImilarly less reliable evidence that husbands died in the Nazi death camps was used to release agunos althugh sometimes it was wrong. Commented May 23, 2014 at 7:36
  • Let me propose another reason one might institute this as policy -- the vegetative husband in past generations would have died sooner than later, but now can be kept alive indefinitely. Do we want the wife to regret that she may have authorized medical intervention to sustain his life and cause herself to be an agunah or to want to be an adulteress? Commented May 23, 2014 at 7:52
  • @BruceJames -- we can do all sorts of things with money because of hefker beisdin hefker. (And it has Biblical support, "psach picha l'ilem.") The Torah says a marriage ends with a Get or death, and the Holocaust etc. discussion is simply at what point we can assume death. (And the rabbis have no magical power there -- if they allow her to remarry and then the first husband appears, it's called adultery.) I understand your public-policy concern for medical intervention, but the point remains -- a Get requires the husband to take a deliberate action. Zikui is passive.
    – Shalom
    Commented May 23, 2014 at 10:07

The issue with a gett me'usah isn't that the gett is compelled, but that the husband did not have a desire to give the gett. Which is why the Rambam says that we can assume the husband had a desire to conform to halakhah if he wants to be part of the Jewish community. It's just that there are other, dominant, desires that outweigh this one, and those desires are motivating his decision. Beis din can't act on unexpressed desires, so we compel him until he says "rotzeh ani" (I want); then it has something actionable to work with. In other words, "rotzeh" (and "want") are ambiguous -- it could refer to a single desire or an overall decision. A gett only requires the former.

(If someone other than the court does the compulsion, the expressed desire isn't sufficietly related to the gett to be considered an overwhelmed but actual desire to give the gett.)

As for gett zikui... There is currently a debate on its viability in the YU world. R Simcha Krausz and R' Yosef Blau (YU's head mashgiach) have formed a beis din that would free agunos largely using gett zikui. It would seem that R' Herchel Schachter and R' M Willing would both be against, although they haven't spoken up about this particular court.

August 2015: Well, R' Schachter just did. See http://www.torahweb.org/torah/docs/ibd-machaa.html, signed by Rav Hershel Schachter, Rav Gedalia Dov Schwartz (of the RCA's Beis Din of America and of the Chicago Rabbinical Council [a/k/a the cRc]), Rav Nota Greenblatt (of the Yeshiva Gedolah of Memphis), Rav Avrohom Union (of the Rabbinical Council of California beis din; active in Nefesh, a group for Orthodox mental health professionals and in child safety), and Rav Menachem Mendel Senderovitz (I don't know who he is).

  • The Halacha is generally not regarded to be like this Rambam.
    – Yishai
    Commented Nov 20, 2014 at 18:14
  • The Beit Din referenced at the end was formed to look into the possibility of doing so. They haven't done so and frankly I don't expect them to do so.
    – Double AA
    Commented Aug 13, 2015 at 14:49
  • Do you know which is the member of the Beit Din that R Schahter mentioned already quit?
    – Double AA
    Commented Aug 18, 2015 at 3:00
  • Rabbi Mendel Senderovitz is a mesader Gittin in Milwaukee (and travels all over).
    – Shalom
    Commented Aug 18, 2015 at 8:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .