As a consequence of the increasingly large number of gittin
that are invalid according to the Torah, and are causing adulterous relations and increasing numbers of mamzerim, we are publicizing the problem in a letter
from a beis din which clearly states the halacha
Concerning get me’usa (get which is invalid because of
improper pressure on the husband)
It is a clear and unambiguous halacha that a get with is
given because of force - that is not authorized by the Torah – is invalid
according the Torah. Therefore a woman who turns with various claims against
her husband which are invalid according to the Torah such as monetary claims,
maintainance, division of property etc., and in exchange for dropping the
demands the husband agrees to giver her a get
- that get is categorized as one that is suspected of being invalid
because of unauthorized force as is explained in Piskei Teshuva (E.H. 134:1)
based on the Rashbatz. Similarly coercing a get by means of physical force against
the husband or threats of imprisonment – also invalidate the get as is
explicitly stated in the Rashba (2:240) and other Rishonim.
Therefore a woman who receives an invalid get by means of coercing or
threatening the husband - in the manner listed above as well as other similar
pressures – is prohibited to remarry and she needs to receive
another get.
TRANSATION?????????
ReplyDeleteIs this a general proclamation or is it about a specific case?
ReplyDeleteindeed! how utterly disgusting the Torah is according to the biryon "indeed!" rachmonah litzlon. After all it does not allow extortion through secular court by conniving, recalcitrant, venomous females who often masser on their spouses the biggest lies and destroy them with litigation that is never ending.
ReplyDeleteI spoke to a prominent posek and he told me that the pressure to give a GET through public humiliation practiced by ORA makes the GET invalid from the Torah and the children are mamzerim gemurim.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, we have the above comment that such is "utterly disgusting?" What is "utterly disgusting"? The Rashbo who says it? The many poskim who quote the Rashbo? HaShem who commanded a Torah? Let us be clear who we are criticizing here.
What mamzerim gemurim?
DeleteYou can present the Rabbonim with a paternity test proving that the wife's husband is not the father of a child, you can present testimony of the wife that her child is the result of an adulterous relationship, and they will not pronounce the child a mamzer!
And here, all of a sudden, they will? What utter rubbish.
indeed! do have any intelligent statement to make or do you just like shooting your mouth off. Please stop this nonsense. You make not a single reference to a halachic source supporting your view.
DeleteWho is this prominent posek? I have seen most prominent poskim turn a blind eye to this issue. Not one has publicly come out against the ORA.
DeleteIt is utterly disgusting that people like this Rosenberg, Gutentag and Pless (or Plass?) gang up to cheat women out of child support that was awarded them by the state.
ReplyDeleteThe only adequate response to manifestos like this, on the side of authorities, would be to ban jewish marriage. But let's hear the outcry when they do it!
The Rabbanim have no business putting themselves above civil courts who are responsible for marriage and divorce matters.
Furthermore, if you think this through, with their famous phrase "women are not allowed to go to arkaos", they practically ban abused wives from going to the police and taking active steps to separate from their violent husbands.
We have more than enough examples where Rabbinim and batey din turn a blind eye to get extortion (on the man's side), go along with husbands asking for huge sums in exchange for the get, send battered wives back to their violent husbands, excuse philandering husbands, excuse husbands who do not provide for the families, ignore sexual abuse, force the wife to sleep with the husband although they do not want, etc.
Furthermore, Rabbinic courts have no coercive power whatsoever, even once they have decided the get must be given. So they use all their power against the women, by summarily declaring gittin null and void after they were given, but they have no power to make a real douchebag (like this stan) give a get.
I cannot understand how anyone who pretends to fight against domestic violence can in any way be supportive of manifestos like this and help them gain publicity.
Indeed! your comments attacking rabbis purely on the basis that they offend your value system - are unwelcome here. There are other blogs which are devoted to ridiculing or attacking Judaism - but this is not one of them. If you have something to say - within the context of halacha then please do - otherwise you will not be seeing anymore of your comments published.
DeletePS: the standard prenuptial agreements I read say that the husband has to go to beith din to give a get less than one or two months AFTER civil divorce....
ReplyDeleteIndeed you are clearly not responding within a halachic framework. If you don't feel halacha makes sense then you can make up anything you want but please do it on someone else blog.
Deletei wonder if the attack is really on using force in gittin. perhaps this issue is simply being used as a way to attack the state's batei dinim.
ReplyDeleteGood point. Since Israel's divorce courts rule more or less like the European family courts, AND have the power of jailing the husband (or withdrawing the driving licence) if he refuses to give a get, I suppose that all their Gittin would be deemed invalid by the authors of this letter and their supporters.
DeleteThe Israeli secular courts have the same status as any non-Jewish countries secular courts.
DeleteI'm speaking of the batey din of the rabbanut...
DeleteSince they are batey din, automatically, there is no problem when they threat or jail, since it is kedin torah...
Ben Waxman,
DeleteI talk regularly with that Beth Din, and they are sincerely concerned with the fact that a coerced GET is invalid and the woman who remarries could produce mamzerim.
Women (or men) have no right under Halacha to seek child support payments to be ordered by a non-Jewish court.
ReplyDeleteNor do they have the right to seek child custody arrangements ordered by a non-Jewish court.
Anyone who does so in violates arkayos. And the secular court action must be reversed. And a Beis Din must rule on the financial and/or custody arrangement as per Jewish Law, not secular law.
While I have no problem submitting to halacha, as explained and clarified by the poskim of our generation, I am apalled at the attitudes I read I some of the comments here. My issue is the moral responsibilities that the Torah places on people to be menchlich. A father has a halachic obligation to fully support his children, and the Shulchan Aruch relates this in detail. I'm sure some of the adovcates who are pro-men will state that this is until age 6 - but I would implore you to re-examine the words of the Mechaber and the Ram"o (Even Hoezer 71). Meanwhile, there are many men who insist on the liberal visitation and almost complete control, while failing to fork over a penny. Furthermore, the get needs to be followed by a court issued divorce (that's NOT an arkaos issue), and the settlements about child support are always reviewed to insure they are in the best interests of the children.
ReplyDeleteI am evenhanded in stating that the difficulties encountered in today's divorces and gittin are approximately 50-50 in terms of who is being less than menchlich.
Most cases that I encounter in which a woman goes to family court to get child support involve a Rav who gives that heter. With all the tshuvos we can find, read, and publish, the specific cases remain more complex. Generalization is less than accurate. I appreciate reading tshuvos like this because they highlight a general issue. But the application of any of these tshuvos to a specific case other than the one in the shailoh is dubious for the lay person.
"A father has a halachic obligation to fully support his children, and the Shulchan Aruch relates this in detail. I'm sure some of the adovcates who are pro-men will state that this is until age 6 - but I would implore you to re-examine the words of the Mechaber and the Ram"o (Even Hoezer 71). Meanwhile, there are many men who insist on the liberal visitation and almost complete control, while failing to fork over a penny."
DeleteYes, and with the father's halachic obligation to support his child comes the father's halachic right to have custody of his child. You cannot demand one obligation while ignoring the other halachic obligation. And, furthermore, the amount of "child support" ordered by secular court typically exceeds the amount halacha demands.
A father has a halachic right to have custody of his children.
"Furthermore, the get needs to be followed by a court issued divorce (that's NOT an arkaos issue), and the settlements about child support are always reviewed to insure they are in the best interests of the children."
The court can be jointly advised by the husband and wife that they have reached an out-of-court settlement -- which is what the BEIS DIN decided -- and the court will accept that.
The wife is halachicly forbidden from forcing the husband to pay an amount to her that the secular court ordered. Only Beis Din has the halachic ability to determine payments from one party to another.
Could you please elaborate or better yet - would you be willing to right a guest post on the subject?
DeleteWho are you asking for elaboration (and on which points)?
Deleteeither Non-extreme view or Drudge Both of you are dealing with critical issues of yashrus. But you clearly don't agree with what is the "right thing to do"
DeleteAlso the question of whether a father should just acknowledge defeat and sort of disappear or he should fight for equal custody?
Both of you seem to have experience with the matter and I would like some realistic expansion dealing with facts & values that are tied in but transcend the halachic issues
A guest post would allow you to present a more realistic description than making comments to other's comments
Typically, israeli family courts i.e. batey din give custody to the mother. They generally also oblige the father to pay child support, in some cases also alimony.
DeleteTherefore, an evolution of halacha seems to have taken place...
I also want to draw your attention to the fact that there are no sources in halacha about visitation rights. Therefore, I doubt that Rav Gestettener has a valid halachic basis when he states that "both parents should spend equal time with the child, as the halacha demands", (in his writ about the epstein/friedman divorce).
furthermore, there is an aspect I do not understand in drudge's arguments:
DeleteIf you have children, do you not want the best for your children? Do you not want them to have a comfortable childhood without poverty looming around the corner?
Many fathers pay more than the child support on the divorce settlement obliges them to pay, because they want a better school for their children, so they pay for the school, because they want them to have leisure activities, so they pay for those activities.
If you are stingy against your children, you really are stingy against yourself, because they are your own flesh and blood.
drudge's attitude seems underpinned by a basic lack of responsiblity, while the normal attitude of a loving father and upright jew would be to do more than "shurat hadin" for his children.
Drudge is absolutely correct. The father can spend an UNLIMITED amount of money DIRECTLY on his child to support him/her, without giving a dime of it to the mother.
Deleteindeed!'s ignorance knows no bounds. A family court and a bais din are different things even in the tzionishe medinah. Otherwise why don't we hear from the frei in Israel that they are being coerced to go to bais din other than for the get?
ReplyDeletePerhaps indeed! the father does not have money for his own living expenses, rent etc. What kind oif bais din awards alimony to the mother? there is no such concept in halocho. Inded! you are indeed clueless.
"Otherwise why don't we hear from the frei in Israel that they are being coerced to go to bais din other than for the get?"
Deletebecause going to a beit din and to the secular court are by very definition, two very different courses of action. in the secular court, be it the court which divides property or the one which decides custody (i've been told that there can be up to 11 different courts including the beit din!!), everyone is equal and the same laws apply to everyone. a person goes to those courts because he is a citizen of the state of israel. it matters not if one is female, christian, male, druze, muslim, undeclared, etc. all that matters is that a person is a citizen. to say that one doesn't recognize the authority of the court would be a statement of revolt.
but going to a beit din is a result of one's being jewish; christians and muslims go to their own court (are you aware that israeli catholics are the only catholics in the western world that can't get a divorce?). if someone doesn't give a damn about rabbis or halacha and feels that the entire state rabbinic system is nothing but a concession given to the religious (which in a way it was), he is going to resent it.
ben you missed my point. i am not judging the frei for their desire or otherewise to attend bais din. all i am doing is highlighting how not only factually incorrect but also logically incorrect indeed!s postings are.
ReplyDeleteDrudge wrote, "Yes, and with the father's halachic obligation to support his child comes the father's halachic right to have custody of his child. You cannot demand one obligation while ignoring the other halachic obligation. And, furthermore, the amount of "child support" ordered by secular court typically exceeds the amount halacha demands."
ReplyDeleteFew questions.
1. If someone speaks lashon horah, davens after the zman tefilo, or is not makpid on yoshon, must he keep Shabbos?
2. Exactly what does halacha require for child support? Where is this stated? Is schar limud considered child support, or is the father's obligation to chinuch a separate matter?
3. What is the father's "right to custody", and where is this stated?
The issues you referenced are not specifically stated (I am willing to educated on this if you can provide answers to my questions). Rather, they are subject to the judgments of the rabbonei and poskei hador. This is suggested quite openly in the Shulchan Aruch (Even Hoezer 71). Me thinks you are making halachic opinions out of personal feelings and preferences.
To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing that places a contingency relationship between custodial rights and child support responsibility - neither in halacha or secular law. I might judge these two to be dependent on each other, but this "feeling" is not recognized by any legal or halachic system. Again, educate me if you have references otherwise.
Of course one must still keep Shabbos. Therefore, we should enforce the Halacha both by child custody (father receives custody per Halacha) AND by child support, father must support his child.
DeleteThe Rosh says the father is entitled to custody of a child. And the Rashba goes even further and says if the father died, the father's family gets custody of the child even if the mother is still alive.
As far as the required amount of support, Chazal write "Kach hi darkah shel torah - pas b'melach tochal" -- Bread salt and water.
And, yes, the father's obligation of chinuch is separate. The father should pay the Yeshivsa directly. Not pay the child's mother.
DeleteIn fact, his entire support for his child he has a right to directly provide the support to the child without giving money to the mother. The mother has no halachic right to demand money to support the child. That is the father's halachic obligation and he can provide his support directly to the child.
Get Meussah?
ReplyDeleteLet's take this situation: A husband has a mistress. the mistress pressures him that she wants him to marry her. the husband gives in to the pressure and gives his wife a get. The wife accepts the get. The ex-husband marries the mistress, the ex-wife finds a new partner, marries and has children with him.
Is this get a get meussah? The husband gave it under pressure. Since it makes no difference who exerted the pressure, the get should be a get meussa.
Are the children from the second marriage of the ex-wife considered mamzerim? Since the get was a get meussa, the children are mamzerim gemurim...
Could you please clarify with the rabbanim who signed this paper and with rav sternbuch whether this interpretation of their logic is correct?
You are dealing with the issue of being forced by others or forcing oneself. See the following teshuvos
Deletehttp://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/04/igros-moshe-law-requiring-get-if-civil.html
http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/04/minchas-yitzchok-law-requiring-get-if.html
If in the case referred to in the Sternbuch letter, the husband gave a get to avoid criminal charges, this looks to me like a case of "forcing oneself", exactly like this one!
DeleteI assume that a US-court would not imprison anyone without having substantiated the criminal charges.
therefore, it is to be assumed that the criminal charges the wife dropped were real, not just a product of phantasy.
Therefore, the husband received a real advantage from giving the get, just like money.
By the way: I find it disturbing that rabbis go along with "buying a get", since, for the general society, it puts the men in a position where they consider "giving a get" as an opportunity to "make money", and that is not in the interest of society (and gives rabbinical courts a bad name).
"Rashi in Talmud Gitten says Chazal were extremely concerned and careful in their edicts so women should not feel Rabbis don't care for their welfare and the
ReplyDeleteRashba Gitten 88 and Yevamos 48 says Chazal made a Takana of Shulchusathu to enable the courts to physically force a man to divorce his wife when they found it necessary for the sake of the
woman or else women would feel insecure to marry.
And out of fear women would never marry in order not to become an agunah."
This is what Rabbonim like the ones who signed the declaration here or Rav Sternbuch or Dovid eidensohn achieve, and what you promote with the very one-sided sources you publish on this blog: women will feel that the Rabbanim do not care for them and will be afraid of getting married for fear of becoming an agunah...
Indeed! has got it all wrong. The Rabonnim care so much that they even believe one witness from medinas hayam in a genuine case of Agunah.
ReplyDeleteBut today we do not have these types of agunah so frequently with international communications and air travel This has been replaced by fake Agunahs not real Agunahs violating halocho by being in arko'oys, extorting equitable distribution, taking the children away with mostly false allegations of abuse and molestation and being oyver mesirah.
True Indeed! rabbonim are not allowed to care for the perpetrators of such heinous misdeeds. They neeed to care about the victims - the husbands and the children.
What is one sided is the feminsit views you indeed! propogate here and your failure to condemn women such as friedman, weiss,, lowy's wife, kins wife etc
What you support are fake reformadox rabbis lie r herschel schachter put in cheirem with an OLD cheirem by rav gestetner and other fake rabbis who claim these women are agunahs when they are just moredos.