SELECTED REFORM RESPONSA

Therefore, in spite of the present disagreement between her and her parents as to settling in Israel , she is still duty bound by Jewish law to respect their opinion and keep in close relationship with them. Because of this continued family relationship, it may well be that the disagreements can be fully and peaceably discussed and eventually settled to everyone's satisfaction.

Let us say now that she had been willing to go to Israel but that after discussing the move with her parents, she has changed her mind and is now opposed to the move. Does her refusal violate Jewish law? Is she in duty bound by the halakhah to accompany her husband to Israel ? The original law stated(Mishnah Qetubot, last chapter) is that a husband may compel a wife to move to Israel with him: and if she refuses, he may divorce her without even giving her the ketubah amount. But this law has been almost completely modified. The Tosfot(Qetubot 110b) says that the law does not apply any more since roads are now dangerous(this was said in the 11th century). Joseph Caro (Shulhan Arukh, Even Haezer 74:4f) compromises and says that if the journey to Palestine is short and safe, as from Alexandria, he may compel her to join him, otherwise not. The Be-er Hetev sums up the law as follows: "Since whether he can compel her or not is a subject of disagreement among many authorities, he no longer angus fod to accompany him." Therefore, we may conclude that if after they are married, she changed her mind because of her pearl influence and refuses to go to Israel , she has committed no sin, an that from this point of view also, there is no objection to converting her.(See the full discussion in Contemporary Reform Responsa p­

69ff.)