Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T10:49:55.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Litigious Gerusha: Jewish Women and Divorce in Imperial Russia*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

ChaeRan Y. Freeze
ChaeRan Y. Freeze*
Affiliation:
Brandeis University, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When Ita Myshkind learned that her husband had remarried before delivering the official get (bill of divorcement), she filed criminal charges against him in state court. “My husband,” she claimed, “Wishing to use my capital and valuable possessions, married me with the premeditated intention of divorcing me.” She complained that a few months after their marriage, he deserted her and married a certain Dveira Rafaelovich; and it was only after this blatant violation of the law that her husband hastily drew up the get without any rabbinic supervision. Efroim Myshkind, however, sharply contested his wife's account, asserting that he had sent a messenger to deliver the writ of divorce in the presence of two witnesses. “It is not at all difficult for a Jew to divorce his wife,” he wrote, “especially if she does not have a good reputation like Ita Kreines [here he used her maiden name], who spent an entire year abroad with different acquaintances.” But at the trial, the husband failed to prove that the get had satisfied all the requirements of Jewish law, much less that his wife had actually received the document. More important in the state's view, he had violated Russian civil law, which required a “spiritual authority” (in this case, a state rabbi) to supervise the divorce procedure. In October 1884, the Minsk court convicted the husband of bigamy and sentenced him to five months and ten days in prison.

Although Ita Myshkind did not achieve all her objectives (namely, forcing her husband to divorce his second wife), she did prevail on two important issues: securing material support and ensuring that her husband would not go unpunished for his crime. That a provincial Jewish woman could utilize the Russian legal system to obtain justice raises two important questions: first, when and why did some women begin to resort to the state; and second, how effective were their efforts and what was the impact on Jewish women and their society as a whole?

Type
Articles
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , March 1997 , pp. 89 - 101
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 Association for the Study of Nationalities of Eastern Europe 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv [hereafter RGIA], fond 821, opis 9, delo 13, list 1-1 ob., god 1884. Petition of Minsk meshchanka (townswoman) Ita Ioselevaia Myshkind (2 July 1884). The standard Russian archival notation will be used hereafter: f. (fond), op. (opis'), g. (god), d. dd. (delo, dela), 1. 11. (list, listy), ob. (oborot). Google Scholar

2. The get or sefer keritut (literally, “a bill of excision,”) was the bill of divorcement that a husband gave to his wife to finalize the divorce in accordance with all the requirements of Jewish law.Google Scholar

3. Ibid., 1. 10-10 ob. Letter of Minsk meshchanin (townsman) Efroim Myshkind to the Ministry of the Interior regarding his appeal to the Senate (10 August 1884).Google Scholar

4. According to state law, “marriages and divorces which are not performed by state rabbis or their assistants will be considered illegal.” Since Efroim Myshkind admitted that his divorce had not been supervised or recorded in the metrical book of divorce by the state rabbi of Minsk, the state considered the act null and void. See Levanda, V. O., Polnyi khronologicheskii sbornik zakonov i polozhenii kasaiushchikhsia evreev (St. Petersburg: Tipografa K. V. Trubnikov, 1874), p. 800. See also Rabbi N. Gershengorn, “K voprosu o evreiskikh metricheskikh knigakh,” Khronika voskhoda, Nos 1-2, 1899, pp. 7-8.Google Scholar

5. For a debate in the Jewish press about bigamy in Russia, see Beniamin Shvaitser, “Dopuskaet-li iudaizm i zhelaiut-li evrei mnogozhenstva?” Vestnik russkikh evreev, No. 24, 1871, pp. 741-742; idem., No. 25, 1871, pp. 775-777; Ia. Gal'perin, “K voprosu o mnogozhenstve u evreev,” Rassvet, No. 5, 1879, pp. 183-188; M. Lilienblium, “Dozvoleno ili nedozvoleno mnogozhenstvo po evreiskim religioznym postanovleniiam,” Rassvet, No. 13, 1879, pp. 297-199; Isidor Gol'dberg, Russkii evrei, No. 10, 5 March 1880, pp. 362-369; Hamelits, No. 7, 24 January 1886, pp. 104-105.Google Scholar

6. Although Efroim Myshkind appealed to the Rabbinic Commission in St. Petersburg to overturn the verdict, the latter upheld the local court's decision. It based its decision on the so-called “ban of Rabbi Gershom of Mayence” (960-1028), who allegedly pronounced an official interdict on bigamy among the Jews and decreed that a man cannot divorce his wife against her will. See RGIA, f. 821, op. 8, d. 291, 1. 53-83 ob., Journal of the Rabbinic Commission 1893. For more on this “ban” see Ze'ev Falk, Jewish Matrimonial Law in the Middle Ages (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966). Regarding the wife's complaint that her husband continued “to cohabit illegally with Dveira Rafaelovich and their illegitimate children,” the Commission ruled that although his second marriage was illegal in Jewish law, it could not invalidate this union. (Although it referred to the response of Ezekiel Landau, Noda bi-yehudah, Even Haezer, No. 2, “Shlichut be-get,” the passage did not contain this argument.) Furthermore, since the Commission did not have the right to coerce the husband to divorce his second wife (as Ita Myshkind demanded), the Commission advised the husband to prepare another get for his first wife so that she had the option to remarry. If the wife refused to accept the divorce, it obliged the husband to pay alimony—the amount to be decided by a local rabbinical court.Google Scholar

7. For groundbreaking research on Jewish marriages in Poland and tsarist Russia, see: Goldberg, Jacob, “Die Ehe bei den Juden Polens im 18. Jahrhundert,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, No. 31, 1983, pp. 481-515; Shaul Stampfer, “Ha-mashmaut ha-hevratit shel nisu'ei boser be- mizrah Eiropa,” in Ezra Mendelsohn and Chone Shmerukeds, eds., Studies on Polish Jewry. Paul Glikson Memorial Volume (Jerusalem, 1987); Jacob Katz, “Family, Kinship and Marriage Among Ashkenazim in the Sixteenth to Eighteenth Century”, Jewish Journal of Sociology, Vol. 1, 1959; Immanuel Etkes, Lita Be-Yerushalayim (Chapter Three “Bein mishpahah le-vein limud Torah”) (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1991), pp. 63-84. On Jewish childhood in Eastern Europe and the psychological trauma of early marriages in Jewish enlightenment literature, see David Biale, “Eros and Enlightenment: Love Against Marriage in the East European Jewish Enlightenment,” Polin, No. 1, 1986, pp. 59-67. For Jewish women's education and marital patterns, see Shaul Stampfer “Gender Differentiation and Education of the Jewish woman in Nineteenth-Century Eastern Europe,” Polin, No. 7, 1992, pp. 63-87; idem, “L'amour et la famille chez les Juifs d'Europe orientale à l'époque moderne,” in Shmuel Trigano, ed., La Société Juive à travers l'histiore (Paris: Librairie Arthème Fayard, 1992). Other works on the Jewish family include Mark Zborowski and Elizabeth Herzog, Life is With People: The Culture of the Shtetl (New York: International Universities Press, Inc., 1965); Sydney Stahl Weinberg, The World of our Mothers (New York, 1990).Google Scholar

8. RGIA, f. 821, op. 8, d. 458, 1. 26, g. 1866. For statistics on Jewish divorce, see also f. 821, op. 8, dd. 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 489, 490, 492. For comparative Russian Orthodox divorce statistics, see Wagner, Marriage, Property and Law in Late Imperial Russia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), p. 70. In 1914, when the divorce rate reached its highest level among the Russian Orthodox, the rate was only 4.20 divorces per 1,000 marriages or 3,714 divorces to 884,476 marriages.Google Scholar

9. Jewish women were not the only ones who resorted to the government; Russian peasant and noblewomen also increasingly turned to state courts and administrative institutions (e.g., the Senate and His Imperial Majesty's Chancellery for the Receipt of Petitions) starting in the period of the Great Reforms. See Beatrice Farnsworth, “The Litigious Daughter-in-Law: Family Relations in Rural Russia in the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century,” Slavic Review, Vol. 45, No. 1, Spring 1986, pp. 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. Polnoe sobranie zakonov [henceforth PSZ] No. 10, p. 90. See also RGIA, f. 821, op. 9, d. 17.Google Scholar

11. RGIA, f. 821 (Departament Dukhovnyikh Del Inostranikh Ispovedanii, Ministerstvo Vnutrennikh Del). It also draws on materials from various central and local archival depositories in Ukraine: Tsentralnyi gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv, Kiev (TsGIA); Tsentralnyi gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv, L'vov (TsGIA-L); Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Kiev oblasti (GAKO); Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Zhitomir oblasti (GAZhO); Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Odessa oblasti (GAOO); Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Kharkov oblasti (GAKhO); and finally, Kiev gorodskoi gosudarstvennyi arkhiv (KGGA).Google Scholar

12. RGIA, f. 821, op. 8, d. 283, 1. 2-5 ob. (a report of the Ministry of Internal Affairs report regarding the education of members of the Rabbinic Commission); f. 821, op. 8, d. 293, 1. 147-215, 301-371 (history of the Rabbinic Commission). See also, M. Kreps, “Ravvinskaia Komissia,” Evreiskaia entsikolopedia ([reprint] St. Petersburg: Obshchestva dlia nauchnykh evreiskikh izdanii i izdatel'stva Brokgauz-Efron, 1991), pp. 223–238.Google Scholar

13. The Rabbinic Commission met in 1852, 1857, 1861, 1879, 1893 and 1910. The members of the first four meetings were mainly merchants and state rabbis. In the election of 1893 and 1910, Orthodox rabbis such as Tsvi Hirsh Rabinovich (son of Rabbi Itshak Elkhanan Spektor of Kovno), Khaim Soloveichik, Tsaddik Sholom Shneerson of Liubavich and other so-called “spiritual rabbis” captured the majority of the seats on the rabbinic commission. For more on the composition of the Rabbinic Commission, see M. Kreps, “Ravvinskaia Komissia,” Evreiskaia entsiklopedia, No. 13, pp. 234-238. For responses of the Jewish press to the “coup” of the Orthodox camp in the Commission, see VI. Temkin, “O ravvinskoi komissii,” Rassvet, No. 5, 1910, pp. 3–5; Davidson, A. “Klerikal'noe dvizhenie,” Rassvet, No. 13, 1910, pp. 4-6.Google Scholar

14. For statistics on the number of civil cases submitted and heard by district courts, courts appeals, the Civil Cassation Department of the Senate and the Imperial Chancellery for the Receipt of Petitions, see Wagner, William G., Marriage, Property and Law in Late Imperial Russia, pp. 49–51, 90-91.Google Scholar

15. The fifteen cases filed by Jewish men reveal that they shared similar concerns as women about marital dissolution but had different objectives and interests. Several suits dealt with husbands who refused to return a wife's dowry and provide support payments. For examples see RGIA, f. 821, op. 8, d. 356 (Aingorn vs. Aingorn) and d. 357 (Sagal vs. Sagal). One husband even sought to abandon his status as a Russian subject to avoid alimony and child support payments (RGIA, f. 821, op. 8, d. 361 Izrail'son vs. Izrailson). Other suits involved complex questions about marriages and divorces that violated Jewish law. Iudelia Katz filed suit to prevent his son and daughter-in-law from remarrying after their divorce, which was prohibited by Jewish law because the son was a “Cohen.” Also see RGIA, f. 821, op. 8, d. 296, 1. 52-54. Some men filed suit against rabbis who rejected petitions to divorce their wives on the grounds of insanity, childlessness, desertion, and so forth. For examples, see: RGIA, f. 821, op. 1. d, 366 (Kissin vs. Kissin); d. 37 (Budgar vs. Sevastopol rabbi); d. 56 (Oselka vs. Rabbi Berger).Google Scholar

16. Lincoln, Bruce, The Great Reforms: Autocracy, Bureaucracy, and the Politics of Change in Imperial Russia (Dekalb, 1990), p. 170.Google Scholar

17. The reformed court system in Imperial Russia consisted of a four-tiered structure: (1) the district (uezd) courts for minor cases; (2) the district (okrug) courts for more weighty civil and criminal cases; (3) the court of appeals (sudebnaia palata); and (4) the Civil or Criminal Cassation Department of the Senate which represented the highest court of appeals. The Senate sometimes transferred “Jewish cases” dealing with religious issues to the Rabbinic Commission. For more on the new court system, see J. W. Atwell, “The Russian Jury,” Slavic and East European Review, No. 53, 1975, pp. 44-61; T. S. Pearson, “Russian Law and Russian Justice: Activity and Problems of the Russian Justices of the Peace, 1865-1889,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, No. 32, 1984, pp. 52-71; Wortman, Richard, The Development of a Russian Legal Consciousness (Chicago, 1876).Google Scholar

18. , Lincoln The Great Reforms, p. 261.Google Scholar

19. For example, Ita Myshkind's initial petition to the court cost 80 kopeeks in 1883.Google Scholar

20. See the opisi (internal registers) to the following fondy in the GAZhO, op. 1-18 for f. 24 (Zhitomirskii okruzhnoi sud, 1880-1919); op. 1-9 for f. 19 (Volynskaia soedinennaia palata ugolovnogo i grazhdanskogo suda, 1871-1880); op. 1 for f. 168 (Mirovoi sud'ia 1 uchastka Zhitomirskogo sudebno-mirovogo okruga, 1887-1919); op. 1 for f. 169 (Mirovoi sud'ia 2 uchastka, 1882-1919); op. 1 for f. 170 (Mirovoi sud'ia 3 uchastka, 1884-1919); op. 1 for f. 171 (Mirovoi sud'ia 4 uchastka, 1872-1918); op. 1 for f. 172 (Mirovoi sud'ia 5 uchastka, 1873-1915).Google Scholar

21. For examples, see GAZhO f. 170, f. 170, op. 1, d. 338 (Brikha Ginstburg vs. Dveira Model for failure to pay her salary of 25 rubles); f. 170, op. 1 d. 174 (Etli Shteinman vs. Itsko Chakovskii for 12 rubles); f. 170, op. 1 d. 187 (Malka Kamenetskaia vs. Pinia Doegin for 11 rubles); f. 170, op. 1, d. 265 (Leia Keizerman vs. Itsek Leib and Ester Rozenbaum for 10 rubles); f. 170 op. 1, d. 322 (Rukhli Vakser against Leib and Khana Unikel for 10 rubles). The majority of domestic workers in Zhitomir district won their cases against their employers.Google Scholar

22. For examples, see GAZHO, f. 24, op. 3, d. 1134, g. 1889 (Suit of T. E. Fogelia and her daughter to receive inheritance from late husband); f. 24, op. 7, d. 153 (Suit of widow E. I. Gershberg to receive inheritance of her husband Dr. D. F. Gershberg). Property and inheritance cases usually include a copy of the last will and testament, claims from various parties, a court transcript and a final resolution.Google Scholar

23. For examples, see GAZhO, f. 65, op. 1, d. 178-end of opis. These suits include complaints against Jewish tailors and seamstresses for not completing orders on time or for ruining dresses, shirts and fur coats. For more on Jewish seamstresses and artisans, see Sara Rabino witch, “K voprosu o nachal'nom remeslennom obrazovanii evreiskikh zhenshchin,” Novyi Voskhod, No. 5, 4 February 1910, pp. 9–10.Google Scholar

24. For examples, see GAZHO, f. 19, op. 9, d. 172, g. 1876-1879 (Rape case of Shendlia Zal'berman vs. Moishe Aba Serlik); f. 19, op. 8, d. 76, g. 1873-1875 (Rape case of Brik Etli vs. Moise Landa). See also Engelstein, Laura, “Gender and the Juridical Subject: Prostitution and Rape in Nineteenth-Century Russian Criminal Codes,” Journal of Modern History, No. 60, 1988, pp. 458–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25. Many of the domestic servants worked on Bol'shaia Chudnovskaia and Malaia Chudnovskaia streets, which were all part of the third district of the Zhitomir Justice of the Peace Court system.Google Scholar

26. “Senatskaia praktika,” Budushchnost', No. 5, 1902, p. 86.Google Scholar

27. “Otvety podpischikam po iuridicheskim voprosam,” Evreiskii mir, No. 10, 1910, p. 56.Google Scholar

28. Khronika voskhoda, No. 39, 1899, p. 1203.Google Scholar

29. Zborowski, Mark, et al., Life Is With People, pp. 300–301.Google Scholar

30. The state charged the transgressor a fine of 50 rubles for the first time and 100 rubles for the second time. Anyone who resorted to the herem at least three times could be taken as a military recruit without a physical examination, Levanda, p. 372. Despite Russian laws against the pronouncement of the herem, rabbinical courts still utilized it on various occasions. See Azriel Shochat, “Ha-hanhagah be-kehilot Rusyah im bitul ha-kahal,” Zion, No. 44, 1979, pp. 161–165.Google Scholar

31. See RGIA, f. 821, op. 9, d. 18, 1. 20. Women whose brothers-in-laws refused to carry out their duty of halitsah (levirite divorce) also appealed to the state to enforce their rabbi's decree. For example, in the Gitli Mogilevskii case, the three brothers of her deceased husband rejected their duty unless she gave them a significant amount of money. Unwilling to submit to their demands, she filed a petition to the governor of Poltava and requested his assistance. See RGIA, f. 821, op. 9, d. 21, g. 1892-1894. For other examples, see: RGIA, f. 821, op. 9, d. 7, g. 1861 (Case of Pesia Iurevich); f. 821, op. 8, d. 291 (Case of Rosa Varshavskii). The blatant disregard for rabbinical authority by some Jewish men, particularly in the cosmopolitan cities of southern Ukraine, Poltava and the two capitals (Moscow and St. Petersburg), raises questions about the level of respect for religious authority among some Jews in the “new areas of settlement.”Google Scholar

32. RGIA, f. 821, op. 8, d. 357, 1. 10-10 ob. Sura Litovchin Sagal vs. Abram Sagal, 18 May 1867.Google Scholar

33. Geographic mobility affected Jews to an extraordinary degree both because they were linked to commercial and industrial development and because of new residence laws for Jewish merchants, students, artisans and soldiers. See Kahan, Arcadius, Essays in Jewish Social and Economic History, ed., Weiss, Roger (Chicago, 1986).Google Scholar

34. See examples see: RGIA, f. 821, op. 9, d. 18 (Ester Poliakov vs. Chaim Poliakov); f. 821, op. 9, d. 16 (Sara Shternfeld vs. Rafael Shternfeld); f. 821, op. 8, d. 296 (Ester Saet case).Google Scholar

35. For the most comprehensive study of the state rabbinate, see Shochat, Azriel, Mosad ‘harabanut mi-ta'am’ be-Rusyah (Haifa: The University of Haifa, 1975).Google Scholar

36. Levanda, O., Polnyi khronologicheskii sbornik zakonov i polozhenii kasaiushchikhsiia evreev, pp. 800–801. The law of 26 May 1853 warned that “no other individual, except for the confirmed official rabbis and their assistants may perform religious ceremonies. Marriages and divorces which are performed by [these] rabbis or their assistants will be considered illegal.”Google Scholar

37. KGGA, f. 16, op. 469, d. 19, 1. 13.Google Scholar

38. “Polozhenie ravvinov v Rossii,” Vestnik russkikh evreev, No. 18, June 1873, pp. 543–544.Google Scholar

39. RGIA, f. 821, op. 9, d. 41. Case of Rivka Adzhiashvili vs. Rabbi Shalashvili (1895-1909).Google Scholar

40. See Shulhan Arukh, Even Haezer, pp. 75–77.Google Scholar

41. Shulhan Arukh, Even Haezer, No. 77, p. 2 (The Rema).Google Scholar

42. Ibid., Letter of MVD Kutaiskaia provincial state rabbi to the military governor, 21 June 1895.Google Scholar

43. RGIA, f. 821, op. 9, d. 13. Case of Malka Malamud vs. Rabbi Lev Kagan.Google Scholar

44. TsGIA-Kiev, f. 335 (chancellery of the provincial governor general of Odessa), op. 1, d. 120, 1. 75.Google Scholar

45. For a similar case to the Malamud suit, see RGIA, f. 821, op. 9, d. 62 (Ita Radin vs. Rabbi Lev Kagan).Google Scholar

46. In an inquiry by the state to the Rabbinic Commission about the legality of “coerced” divorces or those imposed against the will of the wife, the Commission replied that Rabbi Gershom of Mayence forbade men from divorcing their wives without their consent. “But in Russia,” it noted, “coerced divorces still exist in reality.” See RGIA, f. 821, op. 8, d. 290, g. 1893. Questionnaire of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to the Rabbinic Commission.Google Scholar

47. RGIA, f. 821, op. 9, d. 54. Khaia Giller vs. Rabbi Kraminka of Lida.Google Scholar

48. She unexpectedly found out about her divorce through the Kaidanov Office for Townspeople, which had received (from her husband) a copy of the divorce certificate from the metrical book of Lida.Google Scholar

49. The rabbinic authorities investigating the case ruled that because the wife refused to move to Warsaw with her husband (thus refusing to cohabit with him), she should be considered a moredet and deprived of her right to the ketubah (the sum paid to the wife in the event of a divorce or death of her spouse as stipulated in her marriage contract) and tosafat ketubah (additional obligations of the marriage deed). After twelve months of her rebellion, the rabbis ruled she should be forced to accept the divorce.Google Scholar

50. RGIA, f. 821, op. 9, d. 54, 1. 69 ob.Google Scholar

51. For a similar case in which the rabbis ignored a woman's claims of wife abuse by her husband, see RGIA, f. 821, op. 9, d. 16, 9 November 1887.Google Scholar

52. RGIA, f. 821, op. 8, d. 289, 1. 29 ob.—35 ob. Journal of the Rabbinic Commission (1879) on Gitlia Kramer vs. state rabbi of Starokonstantin.Google Scholar

53. The Zhitomir state rabbi, Lev Beinshtok, supported her case and wrote letters to the Rabbinic Commission in an attempt to influence the final resolution.Google Scholar

54. RGIA, f. 821, op. 8, d. 360, 1. 1-2. Meitva Liubicheva vs. Lawyer Friedman.Google Scholar

55. TsGIA, f. 442, op. 138, d. 53. Petition of Tsipi Satanovskaia; RGIA, f. 821, op. 9, d. 16, 1. 1-1 ob. Petition of Sara Shternfeld.Google Scholar

56. RGIA, f. 821, op. 8, d. 289, 1. 34 ob.Google Scholar

57. RGIA, f. 821, op. 9, d. 16, 1. 33. Sara Shternfeld vs. Rafael Shternfeld. In this case, Sara Shternfeld's appeal to the state did not necessarily go against larger communal interests. Husbands like hers who refused to pay support to their wives put an added strain on the already overburdened Jewish charitable institutions. Petitions to the tsarist state to create more philanthropic institutions for Jewish women and children reveal much about the increasing impoverishment of single mothers and their families. See examples in GAZhO, f. 329 (Delo Volynskogo gubernskogo po delam ob obshchestvakh prisutstviia), op. 1, d. 94, g. 1912, Society for the Care of Poor Jewish Women and Children in Kremenets (the board was composed primarily of wealthy and educated Jewish women from Starokonstantin and Kramenets); f. 329, op. 1, d. 131, g. 1913, Society to Care for Poor Jewish Parents and Sick Jewish Women in Radzivilov; GAKO, f. 10, op. 1, d. 116, g. 1908, Society for the Care of Poor Jewish Children in the Rzhishev (Kiev province).Google Scholar

58. The Editing Committee or the Civil Code Commission, created in May 1882, included many professional Russian jurists like Dmitrii Nabokov, Aleksandr Knirim and Nikolai Stoianovskii. For more on the composition of this committee and its proposals for legislative reform see Wagner, pp. 149-169. For a discussion on Jewish family law, see “Zakonoproekt po evreiskomu semeistvennomu pravu,” Budushchnost', No. 38, 1902, pp. 749-750.Google Scholar

59. Wagner, p. 161, citing Grazhdanskoe Ulozhenie. Proekt vysochaishe uchrezhdennogo Redaktsionnoi Kommissii po sostavleniiu grazhdanskago ulozheniia, i. 272, Articles 161, 190-196.Google Scholar

60. “Zakonoproekt po evreiskomu semeistvennomu pravu,” Budushchnost', No. 38, 1902, p. 749.Google Scholar