Need Essay, Please

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Risks and Opportunities of Faith and Culture: The Case of Abused Jewish Women

Alison C. Cares & Gretchen R. Cusick

Published online: 5 May 2012 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Abstract Intimate partner abusers often focus on physical violence, but abuse may also include exploiting a partner’s faith or subculture. Alternatively, faith or subculture may be a source of strength and support for victims. We explored this by analyzing case files from a Jewish domestic violence services agency. Jewish identity conditions women’s experiences with intimate partner abuse through the use of Judaism as a “tool” for abuse, the role of Jewish holidays and observances, and the role of the Jewish community. While partners of abused Jewish women often perverted the laws and traditions of Judaism to control their partners and the reaction of the larger community varied, being part of an integrated cultural and religious com- munity offered support for some women.

Keywords Domestic violence . Intimate partner abuse .

Spiritual abuse

Theorizing and research on the intersection between faith, religious subculture, and intimate partner abuse have assumed a model of intimate partner abuse often defined as coercive

control (Stark 2007) or intimate terrorism (Johnson 1995, 2008). The focus has been on partners who are engaged in a campaign to dominate and control. While physical violence may be used to control the partner, the abuser will typically employ a variety of tactics to achieve control. As presented in the often used power and control wheel (Pence and Paymar 1993) these can include verbal abuse, controlling money, and isolating a partner from friends, family, and the outside world. These tactics serve to gain compliance and entrap victims in the relationship by disempowering them and making it diffi- cult for them to reach out for help or to leave (Kirkwood 1993). A victim’s membership in a faith community or reli- gious subculture is another aspect perpetrators can use in their efforts to control. Assaulting a partner’s religious beliefs, perverting religious texts and practices for the abuser’s pur- poses, and making it difficult for victims to reach out to their faith community for support are potential options for an abuser. While some researchers see this as subsumed under existing categories of abuse, others have argued that spiritual abuse is a separate category because an abuser is preventing his victim from achieving spiritual fulfillment (Dehan and Levi 2009). Past research reveals how faith and religious subculture may intersect with intimate partner abuse as a potential avenue for abuse by perpetrators, a barrier to seeking assistance, and a source of strength and support for victims (Giesbrecht and Sevcik 2000; Gillum et al. 2006; Knickmeyer et al. 2003). This article explores the intersection of faith, religious subculture, and intimate partner abuse by consider- ing the case of abused Jewish women.

Literature Review

Attention to intimate partner abuse in the Jewish community is a recent phenomenon. Jewish domestic violence agencies

The authors wish to thank the board and staff of the agency, Lisa Michels for her help in coding of case files, and David Hirschel, Barry Ruback, and anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier drafts. Data and funding for this research were provided by SHALVA. The views in this article may not necessarily reflect the views of SHALVA.

A. C. Cares (*) Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Assumption College, 500 Salisbury Street, Worcester, MA 01609, USA e-mail: [email protected]

G. R. Cusick Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

J Fam Viol (2012) 27:427–435 DOI 10.1007/s10896-012-9435-3

in the U.S. are two decades old and only a small core of research literature focuses on Jewish women and intimate partner abuse, with almost all of the research published within the last 15 years. Together, these have identified points of intersection between Jewish tradition, culture, and intimate partner abuse. Intersections include perverting Jewish laws and customs to perpetrate abuse, cultural norms inhibiting Jewish wives from leaving abusive relationships, and the role of the Jewish community.

Jewish Laws and Customs

Abusers are creative, having a number of different ways to use Jewish religious laws and practices to their advantage. This may include husbands forcing wives to violate reli- gious commandments, being obsessively and needlessly particular about small points of religious law, using religious ceremonies to humiliate and subjugate, and using Jewish law to justify abuse of their wives (Cwik 1995; Grodner and Sweifach 2004; Lebovics 1998; Palant 2005; Sweifach and Heft-LaPorte 2007; Twerski 1996). An aspect of Jewish law commonly perceived as problematic for Jewish women is the get process. Under rabbinic law, a marriage between two Jews must be dissolved through a divorce, called a get, granted through the Jewish rabbinical court, or Beth Din (even if the marriage is ended through a civil divorce). Only a husband can grant a get and he cannot be forced to give a get, although the religious community might use social ostracism to pressure him to do so. Without a get, a woman is separated from her husband, but cannot remarry or bear children who are legitimate under Jewish law and has no social role in Jewish society. In other words, the social costs are great. Abused Jewish women see themselves as at a disadvantage in the get process and having little leverage to end their marriages, although rabbis may disagree with that assessment (Epstein 1989). Husbands may use the process to abuse wives by refusing to grant a get, although the get process was not designed for this purpose (Cwik 1995; Graetz 2005; Lebovics 1998; Twerski 1996).

Cultural Norms

Shalom Bayis is generally interpreted as peace in the home, and is the religious proscription for a peaceful, loving, fulfilling, and happy family life. Shalom Bayis is seen as tantamount to all other religious obligations. Although cou- ples should work together to achieve this ideal, it is often misinterpreted as a responsibility of wives (Twerski 1996). Jewish women may feel that if they have violence in their home they have religiously failed by undermining Shalom Bayis, and therefore are ashamed to admit they are being abused (Cwik 1995) and will not seek help for fear of being disbelieved (Cwik 1996; Grodner and Sweifach 2004).

Role of the Jewish Community

The Jewish community is often characterized as believing that domestic violence does not exist within the community or that domestic violence cannot occur in a religious Jewish home (Palant 2005; Twerski 1996). This belief works against abused Jewish women, as those who do disclose abuse may have to contend face-to-face with the denial of the community (Sweifach and Heft-LaPorte 2007). Abused women also fear that if they disclose abuse to rabbis they will not be believed or supported (Lebovics 1998), which may explain why in some Jewish samples a significant proportion of survivors have never talked to a rabbi about their abuse (DeVoe et al. 2001). Among those who did talk to a rabbi, the reactions women received were mixed. Some rabbis were helpful and knew appropriate referrals, while others fulfilled the fears of abused women and were help- less, ineffective, dismissive, or refused to get involved (DeVoe et al. 2001; Ringel and Bina 2007).

Research Limitations

Extant theoretical work and research on intimate partner abuse in the Jewish community focuses on challenges faced by abused Jewish women related to the Jewish faith. However, much of the research is based on small non- random samples, domestic violence in Israel, and/or only Orthodox groups (e.g., Dehan and Levi 2009; DeVoe et al. 2001; Grodner and Sweifach 2004; Ringel and Bina 2007; Sweifach and Heft-LaPorte 2007). It is unclear to what extent findings from Israel, where Jews are the majority and the cultural context is different, can be applied to Jews in the United States. For example, Jews in Israel often have high exposure to terrorism and civil conflict and these types of trauma may intersect with the trauma of intimate partner abuse (Sharhabani-Arzy et al. 2003), as has also been seen in Northern Ireland (McWilliams 1998). It is also unclear to what extent findings based on Orthodox groups can be generalized to other Jews, as differences by Jewish identity and affiliation would be expected. However, Jews of all affiliations are influenced by Jewish history, culture, and traditions. Individuals of all Jewish affiliations may struggle with denial of domestic violence within the Jewish commu- nity, shame, emphasis on the family, and the concept of Shalom Bayis and gets (Cwik 1995).

Method

This article explores how the cultural milieu of Judaism has implications for the ways in which women experience inti- mate partner abuse by analyzing clinical case files from a Jewish domestic violence services agency. The agency was

428 J Fam Viol (2012) 27:427–435

founded in the grassroots tradition of battered women’s serv- ices. It was originally established to serve the Orthodox Jewish community of a large U.S. city and later expanded to provide services to the larger Jewish community. Throughout its history, the agency has been staffed by Jewish women and focused on providing culturally appropriate services to clients. The agency operates a hotline and provides outreach and education services for the Jewish community, with individual and group counseling, legal services, financial assistance, advocacy, and case management for female victims of domes- tic abuse who identify as Jewish or as part of the Jewish community.

Sample

Clinical case files were selected via a disproportionate strat- ified sampling procedure with three strata. The first stratum was case files originating between 1987 and 2003. At that time, clinical case files were catalogued by client last name and the agency estimated they had 450 files. For this sam- ple, a systematic random sampling procedure was used and agency staff selected every 9th case from the alphabetized files. This produced a sample of 45 cases.

The second and third strata were selected from cases originating between 1994 and the first quarter of 2008 (the agency switched to computer generated identification numb- ers in 1994). For both strata, a random sample of case identification numbers was selected. The second stratum was short term cases, defined as those in which the client was in contact with the agency for six months or less. A sample of 150 was selected from 2,066 short-term cases.

The third stratum included long term cases, defined as those in which the client was in contact with the agency for more than six months. A sample of 100 was selected from 423 long-term cases. A higher proportion of long-term files was selected because the issues of long-term clients were of particular interest to the agency. The agency was able to locate 69 of the short-term and 60 of the long-term case files. There was a discrepancy between case identification numbers and actual case files. This may be an artifact of the computer process, which can generate “phantom” identifi- cation numbers. In total, 174 case files were received.

Case files were reviewed to determine if they were ap- propriate for analysis. According to agency procedures, a case file was opened once a client had between three and five contacts (phone or in person) with the agency. However, many case files did not contain enough informa- tion for analysis. They were cases that only had an intake sheet or in which there had been a few limited contacts, but no clinical services were provided. For example, a case file could contain notes based on a few short phone calls to assist a client in accessing resources provided by another agency or calls trying to coordinate counseling, but then the

client never came in for their appointment. For a case to be included in the sample, there needed to be notes from at least three contacts with the client from more than one day. Files were excluded from the sample due to extensive case notes in Hebrew (four files) and because intimate partner abuse was not an issue for the client (two files).

This procedure yielded a sample of 76 cases: 23 from the 1987 to 2003 sample and 53 from the 1994 to 2008 sample (11 short-term and 42 long-term). The resulting sample is not representative of all agency clients or all case files of clients, but is weighted towards clinical clients who used services beyond referrals and crisis counseling. Though it cannot be statistically evaluated (due to limited information in excluded files), it is assumed these were clients with higher levels of need due to a limited availability of resour- ces and more severe and/or pervasive experiences of abuse. Based on the quantitative coding of clinical case files (see Table 1), these clients appear to be middle-aged, married Jewish women with children still living at home. The vast majority (88 %) experienced multiple types of abuse, with verbal, emotional, and psychological abuse being the most common (86 %).

Analysis

Contents of Clinical Case Files The research project was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the University of Chicago and the University of Massachusetts Lowell, and was reviewed and approved by the Executive Director of the agency in consultation with the Director of Clinical Services and chair of the Board of Directors. Agency staff redacted all identifying information (client name, perpetrator name, client’s children’s names, addresses, etc.) and then provided a photocopy of the redacted file for analysis. All contents of the clinical case files were reviewed. Case notes made by agency staff from hotline calls, phone calls, meetings with the client, and counseling sessions were the bulk of the information for analysis. Written correspondence with the client was also analyzed; these included: notes from phone calls and meet- ings on the client’s case with other agencies, service pro- viders, attorneys, counselors, and rabbis; requests for release of information to and from other agencies and providers; materials provided by the client (e.g., divorce decrees, arrest reports, custody agreements, letters from perpetrators, restraining orders); intake sheets; agency staff time logs; agency financial records pertaining to the client (including loan applications); and any other included materials.

Analytic Approach Based on prior research and discussions with agency staff, a set of coding themes was created. For example, themes related to shame, the role of rabbis, and the get process were coded. During coding, additions were

J Fam Viol (2012) 27:427–435 429

allowed if important themes became apparent. Two researchers coded cases. Written protocols of what qualified for inclusion under each theme were developed in consulta- tion with agency staff. To test the protocols, both coders coded the same six cases and the research team discussed and resolved any points of difference. Questions on cases were discussed throughout the coding process and any changes made to the protocol were retroactively applied to implement the change in previously coded cases.

Each case was coded for themes and for each case a written summary was produced that was later analyzed. Analysis of case codings was done in Atlasti 5.0. All codes

across cases within a theme were analyzed for sub-themes and then summarized. Cases were also coded on a number of quantitative measures, such as client age at intake, to help provide a demographic snapshot of the clients in the sample. Again, this coding instrument was created by the research team, tested on six of the cases, areas of disagreement were discussed and resolved, and a coding protocol was produced to guide coding. For half of the clients, a Jewish affiliation (broad affiliation categories of Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist) could not be deter- mined. Therefore, Orthodox versus non-Orthodox clients were analyzed to detect any general patterns.

Results

A particular concern of this research was gaining a detailed picture of Jewish clients’ experiences with intimate partner abuse. To gather information on this topic, issues related to Jewish identity were coded on two levels. First, any explicit mention of issues related to being Jewish, such as gets, Bar/ Bat Mitzvahs (ceremonies celebrating a child’s coming of age in the Jewish faith), Shalom Bayis, Jewish holidays (including Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Passover, Sukkot, and Purim), rabbis, Jewish congregations (by name or men- tion of a temple, synagogue, or shul), Israel, the Holocaust, Jewish rituals and laws (including kashrut, the dietary laws), Shabbos (the Sabbath day), and related terms were coded. Second, non-explicit references to the Jewish cultural con- text were coded. For example, if a client talked about how mid-fall is very stressful due to all of the family obligations, this was coded under Jewish identity as being likely related to the High Holidays (Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur). If a client talked about “struggling with her feelings towards spirituality,” that was also coded since all clients were Jewish (except 1, see Table 1).

The researchers remained in regular consultation with agency staff to provide support and guidance. In addition to many educational conversations (on topics such as the get process), agency staff was consulted when coders had ques- tions and a running list of Hebrew, Yiddish, and Jewish terms were kept that agency staff defined for us. The final report was reviewed by agency staff for feedback and cor- rections. This article was also reviewed by agency staff to ensure that no included quotes or details of case examples would identify particular clients.

Based on this approach, 53 of the 76 cases (70 %) ex- plicitly addressed a connection between being Jewish and experiencing intimate partner abuse. Due to the research design, there was no way to evaluate whether intimate partner abuse against Jewish women is more or less severe than in other communities. However, being Jewish did condition women’s experiences with intimate partner abuse.

Table 1 Sample description (N076)

Frequency Percent

Client Age at Intake (M041 years, SD011.2)

<25 2 3 %

25–35 18 24 %

36–45 21 28 %

46–55 6 8 %

>55 8 11 %

Unknown 21 28 %

Duration of Relationship at Intake (M014 years, SD012.0)

<2 years 3 5 %

2–10 years 31 41 %

11 to 20 years 15 20 %

>20 years 13 17 %

Unknown 14 18 %

Religious Affiliation

Jewish (affiliation not specified) 40 51 %

Orthodox 25 35 %

Reform 5 6 %

Conservative 4 5 %

Distant/Nonaffiliated 4 5 %

Not Jewish (partner Jewish) 1 1 %

Relationship Status at Intake

Married 50 66 %

Boyfriend/Girlfriend (current or former) 6 8 %

Separated/Divorce in Progress 14 18 %

Divorced 5 7 %

Unknown 1 1 %

Minor Children (resident) 51 67 %

Types of Abuse Experienced

Psychological/Verbal/Emotional Abuse 65 86 %

Physical Abuse 52 68 %

Financial Abuse 30 40 %

Stalking/Harassment 17 22 %

Sexual Abuse 13 17 %

Multiple Types of Abuse 67 88 %

430 J Fam Viol (2012) 27:427–435

In particular, three broad categories illustrate how Jewish identity played a significant role in shaping the experiences of women: (a) using Judaism as a tool for abuse; (b) holi- days and observances; and (c) the role of the Jewish community.

Using Judaism as a “Tool” for Abuse

A client’s Jewish identity provides an additional set of “tools” for her partner to use as part of a pattern of abuse. Specific instances of this were shared by clients in 21 of the 76 cases (28 %). Examples of ways in which Jewish identity was used as a tool for abuse included the get process, violating Jewish laws and customs, and ties to Israel.

The Get Process Sixteen cases, disproportionately com- prised of Orthodox clients (11 of 16, or 69 %), discussed the status of a get, with seven of these including details of a husband using the get process to control his wife and there- by further perpetrate abuse. Two husbands flatly refused to grant a get. Another would grant a get only if his wife would return with him to Israel. For these women, the inability to easily obtain a get was not only a source of frustration, but a lingering way for their estranged partners to harass them and, for some, prolonged the civil court divorce process. Some clients were not married to Jewish men and others may not have been married in a Jewish ceremony, therefore, a get would not have been an issue for them. Unfortunately, we do not know how many of the marriages in our sample were “eligible” for gets.

Violating Jewish Laws and Customs Many abusive partners, both Jewish and non-Jewish, deliberately violated Jewish law or used it to their advantage, as well as disrupted the practice of Jewish customs. It appears that this type of abuse was more likely to be perpetrated against Orthodox clients. While 35 % of the clients were known to be Orthodox, half of the clients where partners violated Jewish laws and cus- toms as abuse were Orthodox. However, given that Orthodox Jews are more ritually observant of Jewish law, it would be expected that those women would be more likely to be subject to this type of abuse.

In the cases of Orthodox clients, examples included re- fusing to pay for Jewish school for children or for shul (the term used by Orthodox Jews to refer to their house of worship), “losing” the ketubah (the physical Jewish mar- riage contract), and undermining clients’ attempts to be kosher (keeping a diet according to Jewish laws). While refusing to pay may seem like economic abuse (which it may be), it is more complex in the case of Jewish families. For example, refusing to pay for shul would mean a woman could not attend service and therefore could not meet her religious obligations and may not reach spiritual fulfillment.

Her lack of attendance may also cause her embarrassment in the larger community. A ketubah outlines the obligations of the husband to the wife (and her family) and what would happen in the case of a divorce. Some believe that if a ketubah is lost or destroyed, a married couple cannot live together or have marital relations until the ketubah is replaced. In the words of one client, “When I got [home from being away] I told him if the kitchen is not kosher, the relationship is over—I didn’t have a thousand dollars to buy new dishes, etc.” This client was discussing her discovery that her husband was sneaking non-kosher meat into the house, such as when she found ham in the refrigerator. For her, the introduction of non-kosher materials made her kitchen not kosher and she would have to halachically (according to Jewish law) clean her kitchen, which can be a time consuming and laborious process. For example, kashering (making kosher) a stove and oven can be a process that takes in excess of 24 hours. Her interpretation was that she needed to buy new dishes, utensils, and other tools to be kosher again (this varies because not all Jews adhere to the same interpretations of Jewish law). Another client’s husband forced her to break the law of Niddah (the prohibition of physical contact between a husband and wife during and after menstruation but before ritual cleansing) and have sex for hours, which “upset” her “very much.” In one Orthodox couple, the wife felt it was hard for her to respond to verbal attacks by her husband, because he would tell her things based on the Torah (the main Jewish religious text) and other religious writings. These were topics in which she saw him as more learned than she was, as in Orthodox tradition men spend time immersed in Torah study, but the same is not true for women.

Using Judaism as a tool for abuse was not limited to the partners of Orthodox clients. For example, the husband of one Conservative client allowed their son to skip a High Holiday family dinner to go to a sports practice instead, which she found terribly upsetting. In another case, for a Reform client, when a child did not acknowledge the client’s husband/child’s father during a Bat/Bar Mitzvah, the father cancelled a related event he was subsequently hosting.

In four of the cases, a difference in Jewish affiliation was a source of conflict. In one striking example, a now Reform husband demanded that his Orthodox wife give up her Jewish faith to prove her love for him. He also tried to undermine her attempts to be Orthodox in other ways. For example, he would take the family out to eat at non-kosher restaurants, which forced her to choose between breaking kosher so she could remain a part of family dinners and being true to her beliefs by staying home to remain kosher.

For both Orthodox and non-Orthodox clients, their part- ners’ purposeful interference with their ability to maintain spiritual observance was upsetting and shameful. Clients were fearful of being seen by others in the community

J Fam Viol (2012) 27:427–435 431

during a non-observant act and of the subsequent judgment they might receive. This caused them to feel distanced from their spiritual community at a time when its support was needed. This “spiritual abuse” (Dehan and Levi 2009) pre- vented women from fully drawing on their Jewish faith and the Jewish community for support and led to feelings of frustration, anger, and shame.

Israel The Israeli Law of Return adds a layer of complexity to many of these cases. It allows any Jewish person (born Jewish or converted) to move to Israel and gain immediate citizenship. This was a source of anxiety to a number of clients. Clients worried their husbands would flee to Israel to avoid resolving custody issues and court cases, paying child support, making financial settlements, or granting gets. In other cases, clients worried about parental kidnapping. In three cases, clients’ husbands did flee to Israel, which made it very difficult to resolve court matters. However, the ability to go to Israel was also positive for a number of clients. The ability to go to Israel themselves was seen as a chance for, in the words of one, a “fresh start.” One client actually made the move “to heal” and contacted the agency after the move to tell them how wonderful it was for her and how empow- ered she now felt.

Holidays and Observances

Jewish holidays and observances played an important role in shaping women’s experiences with abuse. These events were discussed as an issue in 25 of the 76 cases (33 %). Holidays could be a time of increased tension and abuse in these marriages, with the women feeling the burden of preparing for meals and celebrations while trying to keep peace with a husband who was often undermining her efforts. While holidays are often a stressful time for Jewish women and women from other cultural backgrounds alike, in these cases the stress and conflict was set against a background of abuse, which renders any conflict potentially more explosive and dangerous. In four cases, there was specific mention of how abuse escalated during a holiday. In one case, the client had to flee the home as her husband attacked her while she was holding their infant. In another case, a son’s New Year’s (Rosh Hashanah) wish was that his mother were dead, a comment that went unchecked by his father.

Conflict over how holidays and other religious observ- ances would be observed was also high. Husbands and wives would disagree about where to go or who to have over. One husband asked his ill wife to host a holy day dinner for his grown children. She agreed that she would if they would help. They refused and her husband said he would “find a place to stay over instead of being at home.” Another client’s husband chose to spend Passover away

from home. A third refused to go to his wife’s family’s house for Passover and went to his own family. Another wanted to take the children to Israel to celebrate the High Holidays, which the client barred. These conflicts took a heavy toll on some clients, “[I was] a mess after [the holy day] …. [husband] was very angry …. unpleasant remarks, screaming at [child], steam coming out of his ears.”

Issues of abuse around the holidays, celebrations, and religious observances illustrate how situations that may be issues for intimate partner violence victims in general can be conditioned by being Jewish. For example, children are often used as pawns by perpetrators to control their partners or ex-partners. In this case, Bar/Bat Mitzvahs and holidays were frequent times for that to happen. Clients in five cases experienced intense conflict and manipulation surrounding the planning and staging of Bar/Bat Mitzvahs, which often put children in the middle (see the earlier example of a father who cancelled a portion of the Bar/Bat Mitzvah celebra- tion). Another file included very contentious emails and letters between the client and her ex-husband surrounding an upcoming Bar Mitzvah, with the husband refusing to pay his portion, complaining about the guest list, and accusing his ex-wife of doing a bad job because he was the one who really knew what their son wanted. A few cases included details of court battles over visitation schedules for Shabbos and holidays. One woman was infuriated when a judge granted her husband custody on weekends and therefore for every Shabbos, depriving her of spending that special time with her children.

In five cases, the emphasis in Judaism on their role in these rituals was something the women built on as a source of strength and solace. Even given the unpleasant process of planning her son’s Bar Mitzvah amid harassment from her ex-husband, the client above staged a successful celebration and was proud of herself. It was a turning point for her. For the women in these cases, successfully planning and hosting a holiday or celebration was a step in restoring their faith in themselves. One client admitted she was hosting the Passover Seder “for herself” as a part of her desire to be more empowered.

The Role of the Jewish Community

Resources of the Jewish Community Clients drew heavily on the variety of resources available in the Jewish commu- nity for assistance, although that may partly be a function of the approach of the agency. In 31 of the 76 cases (41 %), clients were known to be receiving services from at least one other Jewish affiliated agency in the metropolitan area. Clients received a broad array of services and assistance ranging from food, shelter/housing, financial assistance, and counseling for clients, partners, children, and families. Some of these were quite unique and tailored. Shopping

432 J Fam Viol (2012) 27:427–435

assistance was offered to support maintenance of a kosher diet while in a shelter, and tuition assistance for Jewish summer camp was provided for children of clients.

Role of Rabbis Rabbis play a prominent and central role in the life of a Jewish community, especially in Orthodox communities. We found that rabbis frequently played a pivotal role in the experiences of women faced with intimate partner abuse. Twenty-one of the 76 cases (28 %) discussed the role rabbis played for clients. Some were involved in their capacity as the client’s rabbi from their congregation. Other rabbis were involved because they were seen as leaders in the community, served on the Beth Din, or were active in speaking out about intimate partner abuse. In recent years, rabbis were the third leading source of referrals to the agency, being directly responsible for referring 9 % of the agency’s clients (analyses not shown).

Rabbis served many supportive roles, with clients discus- sing them as a positive force in 11 out of the 21 cases (52 %). In addition to referring women to the agency and other serv- ices in the community, they assisted women in obtaining gets (often accompanying them to the Beth Din), provided formal counseling, and generally were a source of support. For ex- ample, after one woman partially disclosed her abusive rela- tionship to a rabbi, that rabbi called the client to follow up and recommended that she seek a divorce. Another rabbi told a client she was “like a prisoner,” which helped validate for that client that the abuse was wrong and her experience was not something she had to accept.

However, rabbis’ reactions to domestic abuse in clients’ lives was mixed. Some clearly understood the dynamics of intimate partner abuse and knew how to be supportive of victims. Others did not appear to understand and were perceived by the client as detrimental to their efforts to address the abuse (5 cases or 24 %). In those cases, all of the rabbis were Orthodox. Some rabbis were perceived as clearly on the husband’s side. One viewed the client as “mentally unstable” and saw her husband as a good guy with whom she should try to reconcile. In several cases, rabbis were reputed to make very damaging statements. For instance, the rabbis from a client’s husband’s temple called her after his arrest on domestic abuse charges urging her to drop the charges, grant joint custody, and move out because her husband was the one who works and therefore pays for the house. Another rabbi responded to a disclosure of abuse by telling the client, “We all make choices,” which made her feel very unsupported and as if the situation was at least partially her fault. Another rabbi told a client that her situ- ation and subsequent suffering may be due to a past life. Although the full extent of the interactions is not known in any of these cases, it is clear certain aspects of these inter- actions were pivotal enough for clients to discuss them with agency staff.

Relationship to the Jewish Community and Culture For some women, the Jewish community and their faith were a source of strength and helped them to cope with their abusive relationship (10 cases or 13 %). Others felt discon- nected from the larger Jewish community and struggled with their spiritual life (11 cases or 15 %).

The Jewish community and being Jewish helped women in a number of ways. First, just being Jewish and taking part in rituals and observances provided some women something to focus on and a sense of pride (also see Holidays and Observances above). For example, one mentioned that she found comfort in the Lubavitch (an Orthodox movement) lifestyle. Second, taking part in organized Jewish commu- nity activities helped clients feel supported and strong. One woman’s reentry to life outside her relationship was facili- tated by taking part in synagogue activities, while others turned to Jewish dating services and activities like Hebrew classes and Israeli dancing. Being Jewish and connected to the community provided a way to structure and build a new life after an abusive relationship.

On the other hand, some women did not easily connect to the Jewish community and did not find strength in their faith. Some felt they were “let down by the Jewish commu- nity.” This was especially the case for a rabbi’s wife who hoped once their situation was public she could separate her status in the community from his. For one client, feelings of rejection led her to abandon being Orthodox and another decided to switch affiliations. A few others felt that they did not belong after experiencing humiliation related to needing financial help to belong to a synagogue or other resources (3 cases or 4 %). A handful of clients had a crisis of faith during their contact with the agency (5 cases or 7 %). This was illustrated through comments such as “struggling with…feelings toward spirituality,” and feeling removed from G-d during prayer.

Discussion

In this sample, we found perpetrators used the laws and culture of Judaism to abuse partners as a part of their larger pattern of abuse. This may be the case because this sample is likely to experience intimate terrorism (Johnson 2008), where perpetrators are focused on exerting power and con- trol over their partner and will use whatever tools and options are available to them to do so. As has been argued by Johnson (1995, 2008; Johnson and Leone 2005; Leone et al. 2004), it is the victims of these perpetrators who are more fearful, more likely to experience severe abuse, experience abuse more frequently, sustain injury, and manifest symp- toms of posttraumatic stress disorder, which all may be reasons why they are also more likely to leave. Women who have experienced intimate terrorism are thought to be

J Fam Viol (2012) 27:427–435 433

more likely to seek the services of an agency like the one in this study (Johnson 1995).

For Jewish women, there are a number of ways that being Jewish can affect how intimate partner abuse is experienced and what resources are available to address the abuse. Although aspects of any culture can be perverted by perpe- trators for their abusive goals, this article focuses on the aspects of Judaism that tend to be used by perpetrators to control and abuse their partners. As such, this article adds to our knowledge of how intimate partner abuse intersects with the realities imposed on individuals by faith or religion.

In our sample, 70 % of women mentioned at least one way in which their experiences with abuse were related to Jewish factors. Common “tools” used by perpetrators in- cluded abusing their role in the get process, subverting Jewish laws, undermining Jewish holidays and observances, and exploiting Israel’s Law of Return. In terms of resources and support, being a part of the Jewish community pre- sented barriers and opportunities. At least in the metropol- itan area examined here, one such opportunity included a well-networked, comprehensive set of services that allowed victims to stay within the community for help if they so chose. Within that community, victims perceived that some rabbis were more supportive than others and the larger Jewish community was both supportive and problematic, as has been illustrated in previous studies (see DeVoe et al. 2001; Ringel and Bina 2007). This underscores that contin- ued efforts are needed to reach out and work with rabbis to appropriately respond to intimate partner abuse in their congregations. These findings also echo work in other faiths and religious subcultures. For example, the evangelical Christian church has been found to be a source of social support and spiritual encouragement, as well as a barrier to help and a source of discouragement for abused women (Giesbrecht and Sevcik 2000).

Some of the findings of this study highlight issues that have not been a primary focus of past work, specifically the role of Israel and of Jewish holidays and observances. However, there was the theme that these held helpful and hurtful potential for abused Jewish women. This was recog- nized by the agency clinicians who worked closely with clients to prepare for holidays and to safeguard against partners’ flight to Israel by, for example, hiding their child- ren’s passports.

Finally, what was also notable were some of the things that were not found. As in the work by DeVoe et al. (2001), who specifically asked how Shalom Bayis influenced wom- en’s decisions, we did not find explicit mentions of Shalom Bayis as expected. However, its spirit and the Jewish cul- tural emphasis on family seemed present in the importance some rabbis placed on reconciliation and in the importance accorded to being together as a family for celebrations and holidays. Unlike the categories of religious abuse seen in a

shelter sample in Israel (Palant 2005), we did not find many instances of husbands being abusive by focusing on the minutiae of religious law or using religious ceremonies to humiliate their wives. Instead, we saw more evidence of husbands undermining women’s attempts to maintain their religious beliefs.

Limitations

This study utilized clinical case files for analysis, which yielded rich data. This study also included a large sample size for a qualitative study based on a systematic sample, which was an improvement over past research. However, this design was not without weaknesses. First, the use of clinical case files instead of client interviews means the data were a step removed from the clients themselves. That is, some materials (such as case notes) were filtered through agency staff and clinicians whose own experiences and philosophies may have impacted the way they interpreted the experiences of their clients. Second, this study was based on a subsample of clients from one agency serving one metropolitan area in the United States. Not all clients had a need for clinical case services, and those who did not (who were likely to have less need of services) were not eligible to be included in the sample. Third, it was unclear how representative these women were of Jewish vic- tims who experience intimate partner abuse. We do not know what proportion of Jewish victims of intimate partner abuse seek help nor what proportion who sought help did so from this agency versus non-Jewish domestic abuse agencies. However, given the strong referral network among Jewish agencies and the other area domestic abuse agencies to the agency in the study, we assumed the proportion of Jewish women victims seeking help who ended up at the agency was high.

Future Directions

The findings of this study need to be explored with other samples of Jewish victims and survivors of intimate partner abuse. This can help address whether the issues for Jewish victims of intimate partner abuse are similar across locales and the type of agency from which they sought services. For example, more research is needed with abused Jewish women who do seek services in the Jewish community, but either do not have an agency available that specializes in intimate partner abuse or use non-specialized services, such as a private attorney and individual counseling. It seems clear that issues of clients’ Jewish faith and subculture need to be addressed, but in the absence of an agency like this one other agencies need to know how to best address these issues.

A next step in the research on Jewish victims of domestic abuse is to explore distinctions by Jewish affiliation (e.g., Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist). That was started in this work, but the sample size of clients who

434 J Fam Viol (2012) 27:427–435

identified as Conservative and Reform was too small to make any conclusions or comparisons. Efforts should also be expanded to compare Jews in different cultural settings, especially Israel (where Jews are a majority population) and other countries where Jews are a minority population. Such research may help to debunk the myth that intimate partner abuse does not occur in the Jewish community, to overcome the shame and denial that is often a response to abuse in the Jewish community, and to give Jewish women experiencing intimate partner abuse the support they need. It should also help practitioners continue to develop culturally appropriate responses to Jewish women of all levels of observance.

References

Cwik, M. S. (1995). Couples at risk? A feminist exploration of why spousal abuse may develop within Orthodox Jewish marriages. Family Therapy, 22(3), 165–183.

Cwik, M. S. (1996). Peace in the home? The response of rabbis to wife abuse within American Jewish congregations—Part 1. Journal of Psychology and Judaism, 20(4), 275–348.

Dehan, N., & Levi, Z. (2009). Spiritual abuse: an additional dimension of abuse experienced by abused Haredi (Ultraorthodox) Jewish wives. Violence Against Women, 15(11), 1294–1310.

DeVoe, E. R., Borges, G., & Conroy, K. (2001). Domestic violence and the Jewish woman: an exploratory study. Journal of Religion & Abuse, 3(1/2), 21–46.

Epstein, M. (1989). A woman’s guide to the get process. Brooklyn: Author.

Giesbrecht, N., & Sevcik, I. (2000). The process of recovery and rebuilding among abused women in the conservative evangelical subculture. Journal of Family Violence, 15(3), 229–248.

Gillum, T. L., Sullivan, C. M., & Bybee, D. I. (2006). The importance of spirituality in the lives of domestic violence survivors. Violence Against Women, 12(3), 240–250.

Graetz, N. (2005). The battered woman in the Jewish tradition: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Journal of Religion & Abuse, 6(3/4), 31–48.

Grodner, E., & Sweifach, J. (2004). Domestic violence in the Orthodox Jewish home: a value-sensitive approach to recovery. Affilia, 19 (3), 305–316.

Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(2), 283–294.

Johnson, M. P. (2008). A typology of domestic violence: intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Boston: University Press of New England.

Johnson, M. P., & Leone, J. M. (2005). The differential effects of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence: findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Journal of Family Issues, 26(3), 322–349.

Kirkwood, C. (1993). Leaving abusive partners. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Knickmeyer, N., Levitt, H. M., Horne, S. G., & Bayer, G. (2003). Responding to mixed messages and double binds: religious ori- ented coping strategies of Christian battered women. Journal of Religion & Abuse, 5(2), 29–53.

Lebovics, S. (1998). The observant Jewish victim of spouse abuse: dynamics and countertransference issues. Journal of Psychology and Judaism, 22(2), 91–100.

Leone, J. M., Johnson, M. P., Cohan, C. L., & Lloyd, S. E. (2004). Consequences of male partner violence for low-income minority women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 471–489.

McWilliams, M. (1998). Violence against women in societies under stress. In R. E. Dobash & R. P. Dobash (Eds.), Rethinking vio- lence against women (pp. 11–140). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Palant, E. (2005). A shelter for Orthodox Jewish women in Israel: the experience of helping religious women escape domestic abuse. Journal of Religion & Abuse, 6(3/4), 19–29.

Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth Model. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

Ringel, S., & Bina, R. (2007). Understanding causes of and responses to intimate partner violence in a Jewish Orthodox community: survivors’ and leaders’ perspectives. Research on Social Work Practice, 17(2), 277–286.

Sharhabani-Arzy, R., Amir, M., Kotler, M., & Liran, R. (2003). The toll of domestic violence: PTSD among battered women in an Israeli sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(11), 1335– 1346.

Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in person- al life. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sweifach, J., & Heft-LaPorte, H. (2007). A model for group-work practice with ultra-Orthodox Jewish victims of domestic vio- lence: a qualitative study. Social Work with Groups, 30(3), 29–45.

Twerski, A. J. (1996). The shame borne in silence. Pittsburgh: Mirkov Publications.

J Fam Viol (2012) 27:427–435 435

Copyright of Journal of Family Violence is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.