The Divorce Decree Debate: A Controversy that Shook the Jewish World

In the winter of the year 1601, 16-year-old Isaac Walfish was struck with pneumonia. His fever soared, and he was in grave danger. Doctors warned of the risk to his life. Isaac, already married to Bat Sheva, the daughter of Rabbi Samuel Teomim, faced a dire situation. If he didn't recover, Bat Sheva would require a release from Isaac’s younger brother. Without children, she risked becoming an agunah, bound for years without a husband.

Isaac was from Lviv but was staying in Vienna with his wife's family. On the advice of Rabbi Menach Hendel, Vienna's chief rabbi, a divorce decree (get) was written, allowing Isaac to divorce Bat Sheva. A promise was made that if Isaac survived, he could remarry her. Isaac did survive, but his recovery set off a storm of controversy within the Torah world that would rage for years.

Bat Sheva’s family reconsidered their promise. Despite Isaac's recovery, they deemed him unfit for Bat Sheva, arguing the get was valid and she was free to marry anyone.

Isaac turned to the Maharam of Lublin, the chief rabbi there, who ruled that the get was given only under the belief Isaac was terminally ill. Although the condition wasn’t explicitly states in the document, it was tacitly understood and since Isaac survived, the get was nullified, making Bat Sheva still married to Isaac and forbidden from remarrying.

The Maharam reached out to Rabbi Mordechai Yafeh in Prague, author of the Levushim, who confirmed: the get is invalid and Bat Sheva remains Isaac's wife.

Had this occurred in Lviv, Isaac's hometown, it might have ended there, but Vienna, where the get was issued under Rabbi Menach's authority, complicated matters. Rabbi Menach insisted the get was valid, freeing Bat Sheva.

Disciples of the Maharam contended Rabbi Menach's bias disqualified his belief in the get’s legitimacy. They appealed to other eminent scholars: Rabbi Solomon Luria, the Maharshal; the Maharam of Ostroh; the Bach, Rabbi Joel Sirkis of Krakow; the Maset Binyamin; Bayit Shmuel; Rabbi Wulk, author of the Sma; the Kli Yakar from Prague, and more. Surprisingly, all sided with Rabbi Menach: the get was valid.

Jewish communities throughout Europe were abuzz. Enter any study hall, and the arguments echoed. Either siding with Rabbi Menach’s faction or the Maharam of Lublin. Both were giants of Torah, wielding piles of evidence for their positions.

At that time, the Council of Four Lands, a prominent rabbinical body from Eastern and Central Europe, met annually at the grand fair in Poland. This platform allowed them to address queries from across the continent. In Jerzyroslav in 1601, the council convened and ruled per the majority's conclusion—the get was valid, and the woman could remarry.

The Maharam of Lublin staunchly defended his stance, countering each argument brought against him. Yet, the majority's voice prevailed, and the Council of Four Lands declared the get valid. Rumors spread that Rabbi Yafeh, the only notable supporter of Maharam’s view, had recanted, rejecting the get. However, from his deathbed, Rabbi Yafeh affirmed his position in an open letter, still upholding the get as valid. He passed away three days later.

The Maharam, unwavering, demanded a retrial during the council's next session in 1602 in Germanitz. Nevertheless, the conclusion remained unchanged—the get was valid, and the woman free to remarry. According to Jewish law, one must lean towards the majority, and it’s forbidden to cast doubt on a get deemed valid by a rabbinic court, thus safeguarding the woman's progeny from future illegitimacy accusations. Although the Maharam didn’t relent, he ceased pursuing the matter, restoring peace to the Polish yeshivot.