 |
| For illustration only |
A NY Judge has rejected a Get deposited in a valid Bais Din as fulfilling the requirements of the NY Get Law on the grounds that the Bais Din insisted that the Get only be given over in accordance with Halochoh to ensure the validity of the Get. The Bais Din ordered the female Plaintiff to be tzias dina and leave arko’oys in order to receive the get as required by Shulchan Oruch. The Plaintiff refused.
The judge claimed that since the Get was not unconditional, it was not a valid Get and ordered that a “Glatt Kosher” Get be issued. Thus is despite the fact that “Glatt” only applies to “shechted” meat, and refers to the smoothness of the lungs.
The Plaintiff’s lawyer insisted in forcing the Defendant to go to one of the many “hired gun” mercenary type, for profit, purported “botei din” in the NY area (the Bobover) in order to consider settling the case which the Plaintiff has deliberately dragged on for many years in order to destroy the Defendant financially as well as prevent him proper access to his children.
The Judge furthermore warned the Defendant through his lawyer “off the record” (so that there would be no proof of the threats in advance of any trial and any due process occurring) that if the matter did go to trial if another Get was not issued, the judge would see to it that the Defendant’s visitation would be reduced but reasons totally unrelated to the Get would be created in order to reduce likelihood of this being overturned on appeal. The Defendant would have to pay additional money as maintenance to the Plaintiff since he was preventing the remarriage of the Plaintiff.
For fear of retribution, the parties involved shall remain anonymous.
1. Is this not against the constitution in terms of separation of church and state?
2. Is this not Stalinist behavior in terms of punishing someone even before the case and the
3. Defendant’s arguments have been heard? Is the Defendant not at least entitled to a fair trial
4. Do not Rav Elyashiv zt”l, Rav Menashe Klein, Rav Moshe Sternbuch and even the Aguda and every other posek with some inkling of yiras shomayim hold that this will produce an invalid get me’useh?
=======================
Update [8/26/2013 D.T.] Here are some quotes from Rabbi Chaim Malinowitz' critique of the New York State Get Bill from JLaw Update 8/27/13 Rabbi Michael Broyde's response
In the view of this writer, the problems with the New York State Get Bill are so many and varied, that the wonder is not the opposition it has met, but rather that it has any support whatsoever. Many contend that the Jewish community is immeasurably better off without the bill than with it since, as we shall see, the bill represents a dangerous time-bomb to the validity of many Gittin. Hence, ultimately, it endangers the sanctity of the Jewish family. In addition, ironically, the bill may actually be counterproductive. The halachic process, which, under most circumstances solves Igun problems when followed through, is undercut by "solutions" such as these. By encouraging people to avoid a Bet Din and avoid having to justify their demands by the standards of halacha, it only helps frustrate Rabbanim and Rabbinic Judges who seek halachic solutions. It teaches litigants to ignore the Bet Din process and rulings and, indeed, to second-guess them. The overwhelming majority of Igun cases, after all, are solved -- by rabbinic leadership along with community pressure. If the public is taught by well-meaning and not-so-well-meaning activists that the halachic route is to be avoided and ignored, then although there may be a few agunot helped by (one hopes) valid Gittin, there will be many many more who find their problems compounded.
Apart from the bill's flaws with respect to the validity of Gittin, there are three other anti-halachic effects. In the opinion of this writer, these effects are so manifest, so incontrovertible, that it is mystifying that any Orthodox Rabbi, much less any rabbinic institution, can be in favor of it.
I. The first basic flaw in the Get Bill is that it is intended to aid in procuring a Get -- even if there is no reason according to Jewish law to assume a Get to be appropriate.[...]
II. Furthermore, resorting to the secular courts to resolve disputes is strictly forbidden in Jewish Law.14 This transgression is described by the Shulchan Aruch as akin to blasphemy and "taking up arms" against the Torah.15 The Rashba16 warns against confusing this prohibition with the dictum Dina D'malchuta Dina ("the law of the land is law").17 Even if both parties agree to go, and in fact stipulate in writing that they will utilize the civil court system, it remams forbidden by halacha.18[...]
III. As we have noted, the prohibition of resorting to the secular courts holds true even if every court action happens to follow all the rules of the Shulchan Aruch. If there are any differences, the additional issue of out-and-out theft arises, if the courts award money or privileges to either party.21 (Even in circumstances where one had received permission from a Bet Din to "use the courts" one is prohibited from keeing any monies he is not entitled to according to halacha.) The Get Bill encourages a woman to use the civil courts to set rates of maintenance and "equitable distribution despite the fact that she might not be entitled to that money according to Jewish law. [...]
The question is that if we know that the purpose of the wife and the judge is to force a GET, but the judge is aware that if he forces a GET directly it may be illegal to do so, and calls it something else that we assume is bluff, is the bluff a successful veil for a forced GET or is it not? Or do we say that we pierce the veil and see the true intent of the judge which is to force a GET which would then be invalid?
ReplyDeleteThe answer to this is that the key to all of this is the thoughts of the husband, not the thoughts of the judge or the wife. If we assume that the husband is giving the GET out of fear that the judge can take away his children, the GET is invalid. It is not necessary for the judge to announce his intent to make a GET. If the husband realizes that his life is in the hands of the judge or anyone else who is determined to get a GET from the husband, and if no GET is forthcoming this person can make great problems for the husband, and the husband fears this, then the GET is invalid. Thus when the judges are interested in a GET and the rest may be bluff and the husband fears this, and he gives a GET, and later he said he was forced to do so by the fear of the judge, this would be a strong case for invalidating the GET. It is even possible that if we know that there is such a problem that we can interpret the GET is being forced, even if the husband is silent. Perhaps he is silent because he is dealing with someone who can claim contempt of court and put him in jail. If so, even if the husband is silent the GET is likely to be invalid.
The NY GET law is not in and of itself problematic. Let the competent dayan and mesader GET ascertain whether the GET is being given freely.
DeleteThe court is not invalidating the GET. It is simply saying that he has not done all that is necessary to gain a SECULAR divorce. The GET may be kosher according to halacha and he may be divorced.
James,
DeleteThe New York GET law is a problem. It is designed to force the husband to give a GET by threatening his rights to money and I understand that the latest version of the law allows the judge to adjust visitation and custody. Forcing a GET because of monetary loss or loss of custody or visitation is a serious coercion that may invalidate the GET. At any rate, I heard from Posek HaDor HaGaon Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashev zt"l that he was very upset about the New York State GET Law and considered it a problem of a forced GET. Many people tried to make a compromise but he never budged from his opposition and even has a teshuva about it in his teshuvose 180 where he strongly opposes it. He states there that a husband who must give a GET, but the Talmud does not suggestion forcing him, that such a husband if forced to give a GET the GET is Botel from the Torah. That is, the children born from the GET are mamzerim diorayso. Also, the vast majority of divorces are MOUS OLEI, when the wife has no proof of the husband's obligation to divorce her, and anyone who coerces the GET surely makes an invalid GET and perhaps mamzerim.
Rabbi Broyde's article on the GET law states otherwise.
DeleteI dont consider Rav Elyashiv the Posek HaDor. I am not sure he ever wrote any teshuvos. Some of the teshuvos in the sefarim were written by other people and others are taken from when he was on the Bet Din HaGadol - some of those were minority opinions in which he was outvoted.
Reb Dovid the husband was on the same page as the Bais Din - a get is only given when the halocho is followed and the plaintiff leaves atcho'oys with all the halachik ramifications of leaving arko'oys. he even told the bobover chosid this - the Get is being given purely to stop the litigation - for no other reason.
ReplyDeleteI know nothing of the particulars of this case, but one thing I do know, the situation with the court is getting worse all of the time. And a major reason for this is that many rabbis are not willing to publicly challenge secular laws that free a woman from a broken marriage. The Torah has a different opinion, however. See Even Hoezeer 77 par 2 and 3 and the Gro #5 who says that all of the major authorities agree that we do not coerce a husband with MOUS OLEI. But many rabbonim do force it, and this makes, according to Reb Elyashev zt"l, mamzerim diorayso. In the coming generation, and even today, there is a growing number of them, because in the whole world I think only two people are really publicizing the problem, and to see what they say you have to go to the Internet. A Rov in Israel wrote an attack on the practice of forcing Gittin and he was told not to put his name in the book otherwise he would go to jail.
DeleteThe defendant should go to a Reform or Conservative or Reconstructionist Rabbi and have him/her issue a "Get". No American court can make a legal distinction recognizing only one branch of religion or to force a man to utilize only an Orthodox, since U.S. courts cannot enforce religion.
ReplyDeleteOnce she has her Reform "get", he followed the Get Law.
Any man who withholds a get is not a real man, but rather a lowlife! If you were a real ben torah you'd understand that and you would not defend this scumbag. He should simply give his wife a get, because clearly the marriage is over! All the rest can be sorted out after. Clearly the husband is withholding the get in order to use it as leverage against his soon-to-be ex-wife, and THAT is most definitely not in accord with torah-true behavior. What a shame that someone who wears the mantle of "ben torah" in his chosen pseudonym is defending a such un-torah-like behavior.
Deletehow apalling!
That is absolutely incorrect. A husband is NOT obligated to issue a Get to his wife simply on her wanting one. If the husband wants to remain married to his wife he has that absolute right. The only exception is if he wronged her in some way that gives her a halachic justification to demand a Get in Beis Din by her proving that in to the Dayanim. In the absence of such a circumstance, any husband has the legal and moral right to remain married to his wife and she has the halachic obligation to accept that.
DeleteIf the husband wishes to maintain the marriage he is not obligated to divorce his wife. However, that does not mean that it is permissible for the husband to withhold a get as leverage to force a more favorable financial or custody arrangement. It isn't, even if his financial claim is just. See Igrot Moshe Even HaEzer 4:3.
DeleteAnd in these days, why would a decent husband want to remain married to a woman who wants to divorce him?
legal right, yes. moral right? I think not. One can be a naval birshus hatorah. the letter of the law is met, but he is not acting in a moral way.
DeleteMike: "These days" the Torah is no different that yesteryear. Why would a husband want to remains married to his wife even though she wants a divorce? For many reasons. Each situation is different. Each marriage is different. And there can be varied reasons a husband wants to remain married to his wife even though she wants a divorce. That is his absolute right. (In the absence of cause, such as physical abuse, which gives her the halachic right to demand a Get.)
Deletejk: It is both fully legal and moral. It is both the letter and the spirit of the law. And it is Torah Law as it always has been.
I had planned to answer that while the Torah is eternal, people's expectations for marriage vary, but on second thought you are right. It always has and always will be an indecent thing to stick a woman with a marriage she doesn't want. And Chaza"l knew it and said so. In their day the problem seems to have been more in the creation of the marriage than the dissolution, but the gemara addresses this in the beginning of the second perek of Kiddushin. The gemara says that "v'ahavta l'reyacha kamocha" requires a man to see his bride before kiddushin lest he find her unattractive and so stick her in a loveless marriage, and it says that a father is forbidden to marry off his daughter, even though the Torah gives him the power to do so, until she is old enough to decide if she likes the match. This is quite explicit that, although the Torah makes it possible to stick a woman or girl in a marriage she doesn't want, that doesn't make it an acceptable, or perhaps even permissible, way to behave.
Delete"why would a decent husband want to remain married to a woman who wants to divorce him?"
DeleteThis is a naive question posed by someone who must have no awareness of the feminist police state apparatus that is destroying so many divorced American men.
I don't think the Igrot Moshe cited can be possibly be applied to so-called financial arrangements where in fact Jewish men in divorce conflicts are routinely jailed and their lives destroyed by ruthless and vindictive "frum" women, while the feminist rabbis and organizations like ORA scream about alleged "agunot".
Where are JK and the other MO "moralists" while Jewish men are being destroyed by their moseres wives?
Jail Becomes Home for Husband Stuck With Lifetime Alimony
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-26/jail-becomes-home-for-husband-stuck-with-lifetime-alimony.html
A woman agreed to permanent marriage at the time she *agreed* to get married to him. She made an irrevocable *consent*. She cannot renege in the absence of halachicly "justifiable cause" (such as physical abuse) that gives her the legal right to a divorce. In the absense of that, the default law, both the letter of the law and the spirit (moral) of the law, is that he has a right to remain married to her. He needn't surrender that legal and moral right. It is indeed immoral for her or anyone else to attempt to force him to surrender his marriage and wife. This is the Torah Law as handed down at Mount Sinai and upheld throughout the millenia in the many various legal codes from Talmudical Times through Shulchan Aruch and beyond.
DeleteIt is certainly true that a woman cannot unilaterally leave a marriage. But marriage does not dissolve the husband's obligation to treat his wife with the same respect he is obligated to treat everyone. V'ahavta l'rayacha kamocha still applies, and he is still obligated to treat her properly. He may not treat her in a way he wouldn't like to be treated (as Hillel haZaken formulates it) You said: "he has a right to remain married to her". This is wrong--the Torah doesn't give rights, and especially not the "right" to keep someone else miserable. The Torah imposes obligations on both parties.
DeleteIt is common in the Tshuvah literature to point out that a wife is not a captive and a husband may not treat her like one, and in other ways that the husband's authority over divorce is not unbounded. For example, from the Tzitz Eliezer:
אמנם כפי אשר תחייב המציאות - הטבעית מצאה התורה הכרחית למסור מעשה הגירושין ונתינתו בפועל בידי הבעל, אבל טעות הוא לחשוב שנמסר לו על כך שלטון בלי מצרים וכי האשה מסורה בידו כחומר ביד היוצר
It is one thing to acknowledge that the Torah requires a written get and written by the will of the husband. But even the posekim who disagree with the Rambam and the Geonim about a bet din compelling a get when the wife finds her husband repulsive (ma'us alai) do not suggest that the husband is behaving properly to withhold a get.
The Torah requires everyone to behave with basic menschlichkeit at all times.
No one said that he mustn't treat her with the utmost respect. That negates none of the aforementioned points.
DeleteThe Torah gives him the legal and moral and ethical right to maintain his marriage to his wife, and this is a fact and point she must respect. If he does not want to give a divorce, in the absence of legally justifiable (and provable) "cause", it remains his right to maintain his marriage. And no one can force him to issue a divorce against his will. That is Torah Law and always has been and remains.
Maintaining the marriage IS mentchlichkeit, and both he and she should respect that fact.
Mike S. wrote: You said: "he has a right to remain married to her". This is wrong--the Torah doesn't give rights, and especially not the "right" to keep someone else miserable. The Torah imposes obligations on both parties.
DeleteThis is not accurate. There are in fact rights and it is clear from many poskim that the husband has the right to refuse to give a divorce to a wife who finds him disgusting. The poskim who state that the husband should be encouraged to give a get when the wife wants out of the marriage - is primarily because of concern that she will commit adultery
Mike S. wrote:It is common in the Tshuvah literature to point out that a wife is not a captive and a husband may not treat her like one, and in other ways that the husband's authority over divorce is not unbounded. For example, from the Tzitz Eliezer:
The above is the Rambam's position - which is not accepted. If you read through the halachos in the Rambam you see clearly that the husband has the right to control his wife.
In sum, you are expressing contemporary views of morality and ignoring the fact that the majority of poskim through the ages say no such thing.
Rav Eliashiv (Kovetz Teshuvos 134): Question: We are dealing with a case in which it apparently has been shown that the wife hates her husband – heart and soul – because of his behavior which is simply abnormal. The woman therefore has the claim of ma’us alei with a clear basis. This couple has lived separately for over 6 years. The question is whether the beis din will comply with the request of the wife and require him to give her a get. Answer: Even if you grant that this woman has the status of one who says ma’us alei with a clear justification, that in itself does not require that the husband give her a get. Look at Shut HaRashba (# 135 - attributed to Ramban), Question: When a woman claims ma’us alei... is the husband obligated to divorce her....? Answer: ... You should know that she is not able to force her husband to divorce her since a woman goes out of the marriage sometimes according to her desires and sometimes not according to her desires. On the other hand the man only leaves the marriage only when he want to leave it... From all these you see that when a woman claims ma’us alei we do not force the husband to give a divorce... Even though the Rambam writes that when a woman says ma’us alei the husband is forced to divorce her – the Rambam is not correct in this matter... Concerning the kesuba and dowry that she brought him – according to the din she does not lose anything unless she insists on being a moredes for 12 months and all these 12 months she is not forced... However if she remains a moredes for 12 months and her husband wants to divorce her – she loses everything.... That is her din when her husband divorces her according to his wishes after 12 months. But if the desire to divorce comes from her – as we said before – he is not forced to divorce her. The words of the Rashba imply not only is the husband not forced to divorce her when she claims ma’us alei but that he has no obligation to give her a get! This is also apparent from the words of Tosfos(Kesubos 63).... Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 77:2): If she says that he disgusts me and I can not have relations with him – if the husband wants to divorce her she does not get any money from the Kesuba at all. Rema (E.H. 77:2)... All of this is only when she doesn’t give a reason and justification for her words as to my she finds him repulsive. But if she does give a reason for her words... And we don’t force him to divorce her nor do we force her to remain with him. And if you want to claim that he must divorce her – it is obvious that since we don’t force her to remain with him then of necessity that there can’t be an obligation of the husband to give her a get. It is the same thing.
Yachin uVoaz (1:124):[15th Century Algeria] You should know that there are two different types of moredes and they have different laws. There is a moredes who despises her husband and she asserts that he is disgusting to her. On the other hand there is a moredes who says she wants her husband but she wants to torment him In the case of ma'us alei the view of the Rambam is that the husband is forced to divorce her immediately and he learns this from a deduction from the gemora as the Rosh writes. The Rambam states in Hilchos Ishus (14:8) that if a wife refuses sexual relations that the husband is forced to give a a get since she is not like a prisoner who can be forced to have relations with someone she hates. However there has long been an outcry against the ruling of the Rambam by all the commentators and poskim such as Rabbein Tam, Ramban, Rosh, Rashba and many others. They agree concerning forcing the husband to divorce. Whoever forces the husband to divorce in accordance to the ruling of the Rambam increases mamzerim in the world. And they reject the view of the Rambam with clear proofs from the Talmud as the Rosh does. And many proofs are brought to refute and reject the words of the Rambam. And even the Magid Mishna who normally devotes himself in all places to justify the words of the Rambam and to firmly establish their validity with clear proofs - in this case he refutes the Rambam and goes into detail with proofs to contradict the Rambam's reasoning and to reject it. It is unnecessary to repeat them here. The halachic view that has become univeral is that one does not force the husband to give a get when she claim ma'us alei and we do not rely on the ruling of the Rambam nor others who agree with him in this matter. And furthermore that even if the halacha was in accord with the Rambam it would be correct to make a protective fence in this matter to prevent immorality amongst the woman because of the degradation of the contemporary generation. Because woman have become haughty and arrogant in their immorality. We are therefore concerned that a wife might have become interested in another man and she wants to disgard her husband by declaring he is disgusting to me (ma'us alei). If it became known that that would be sufficient to have her husband forced to give her a get then it would surely cause problems. But in fact the Rambam is not the halacha because of the proofs that the opponents of the Rambam bring [And even in Algeria where they always follow the Rambam there are three exceptions and this is one of them and not those who agree with the Rambam...]. However I saw in the Rosh who writes that if in fact the psak of the Rambam was followed and the woman was divorced by force and she remarried - we don't force her leave the second marriage. However many others disagree with the Rosh and they say that if she remarries after a forced get - she must leave the second marriage.
DeleteRav Ovadia Yosef (E.H. 8:2.2): 2) In previous generations the husband was given permission to take an additional wife if his first wife was declared to a moredes (rebellious wife). The first wife would remain an agunah for the rest of her life until she became an old lady with white hair as punishment for rebelliing against her husband. An example of this is found in Shut Mishpat v’ Tzedaka b’Yaakov (2:36).... Similar cases are found in other Achronim. Nevertheless our contemporary society has weakened and there is now a strong possiblity that the agunah will deviate from religious observance because of her aguna status. This is a dissolute generation and people do not obey authority. And if the woman makes up her mind later to accept the get from her husband there is a clear concern that her husband will refuse to give her a get out of spite because he is already married to another woman and it is impossible to force him to give a get to his first wife and therefore she will just reject religion and go on a bad path. Because she is still married however, any children she subsequently has with another man will increase the number of mamzerim in the world. A possible solution is that before he can remarry he needs permission from the beis din and thus it is relatively easy to use that to influence him to deposit a get for his first wife with beis din. Only when he has deposited a get then can we give him permission to remarry according to halacha. After I thought of this, I saw that Rav Masas wrote in his sefer Tevuos Shemesh (E.H. 30), “Even though in all the seforim of the Achronm concerning previous rabbinic courts (beis din), the beis din ruled that in the case of moredes she remained an agunah her entire life until she became an old lady with grey hair and the husband was allowed to marry another woman if he wanted – without first divorcing her. This was a common ruling and the first wife remained unable to remarry until the day that she died. However this approach was appropriate in previous generations when the spirit of Judaism permeated the people and there was no one who would dare do a serious sin – in particular not to openly transgress the serious sexual sins. But it is no longer true true in our day which to our great sorrow the spirit of individual freedom has become dominant and faith has weakened. We no longer have the power to have people properly comply with religious rulings and there is a great concern that people will go off the path of religious observance. There is no question that all our rabbis acknowledge that all efforts need to be made to have the get deposited with beis din...He concludes his words by saying that in the year 1950, all the rabbis of Morrocco gather together and they made a decree through the official rabbinical confederation – that no man could remarry until he divorced his first wife who was a moredes and had declared that she couldn’t stand living with him (ma’os alei). This decree was accepted and it became a regular occurence for the beis din to rule accordingly. This get that the husband was required to give before remarrying was not considered get me’usa ( a coerced get). That is because he had the choice of not remarrying and therefore he didn’t have to give the get. However with a moredes who simply wanted to afflict him and torture him and consequently refused to accept the get – there was no choice but to require that the get be deposited in beis din as we mentioned before....
DeleteFirst, there are many things the Torah requires of people that a bet din cannot compel. For an example that might not stir emotions so much, a bet din will not compel a defendant to pay for invisible damage (hezek she eino nikkar) but he is still obligated to make it good (latzeit y'dei shamaim.)
DeleteSecond, none of the sources you cite suggest that the husband's conduct in withholding a get is admirible or even proper. Third, while the reason of the Rambam (and Rif, Rashi, Rashbam and the Geonim ) is primarily because of concern that she will commit adultery or otherwise leave religion, it is equally true that the reason of Rabbeinu Tam and those who agree with him is fear that women will fall in love with others (shema nat'na eineha be acher) and seek to leave their husbands for that reason. They too are concerned about immorality not "the right of the husband". Indeed, Rav Herzog writes (Heichal Yitzchak E.H. 1:2) that even those who oppose the Ramba"m would agree that it is a mitzvah for him to grant a divorce. His concluding paragraph of a long Tshuvah reviewing the shittos (by the way, he says it is erroneous to cite the Rosh as opposing the Ramba"m--see his tshuvah in full) is as follows:
(כח) אכן נלע"ד שגם החולקים על הרמב"ם בעיקר הדין שאין לכופו על גט בטענת מאיס עלי עכ"פ הרי גם לדידהו אין לדונה כמורדת כשבאה בטענה מבוררת לבי"ד כמבואר בשו"ע. ואם מורדת איננה בהצטרף כל הטעמים דלעיל שעכ"פ מצוה עליו שלא לעגנה ולפוטרה בגט יש אולי מקום לחייבו במזונותיה מדין מעוכבת מחמתו. הן אמנם שמדברי הגרע"א בתשובות החדשות סי' נ"א הנ"ל לא משמע כדברינו אכן המעיין שם בהגרע"א יראה שגם הוא לא החליט בנידון ואינו אלא כמסתפק עיין שם. וא"כ יש מקום כנ"ל לחיוב מזונות אף שהדבר עדיין צריך עיון לדינא. עכ"פ מכלל ספק לא יצא והוי כוודאי חיוב וספק פטור ומכח הפקר בי"ד יכולים להטיל עליו מזונות, כנלע"ד.
Finally, and perhaps most important, as Hillel HaZaken put it in the gemara Shabbos, the Torah generally does not permit one to treat someone else in a way he himself would not want to be treated. Since those desires and expectations are to some extent culturally dependent, "contemporary views of morality" are entirely relevant to our assessment of the husband's behavior.
I forgot to add to my previous reply that all the sources you cited deal with cases where the husband wishes to continue the marriage, not where (as seems to be the usual case today) he too wants a divorce and is using the get as leverage for a more favorable financial or custody settlement.
DeleteAnd to Ben Torah: "No one said that he mustn't treat her with the utmost respect. That negates none of the aforementioned points. " Yes it does. One is not treating someone with "the utmost respect," or any respect at all, if he is insisting she remain in a marriage she finds repugnant.
@Mike S. - "the Torah doesn't give rights, and especially not the "right" to keep someone else miserable"
DeleteYour comments reek of MO feminist hypocrisy. In fact most of the fake "agunot" cases nowadays involve Jewish women using non-Jewish courts to rob, jail, and terrorize their ex-husbands in utter violation of Torah law. These men are kept miserable for many years trying to avoid the feminist police state jails. Many of these men are unable to remarry and move on with their lives due to financially crushing alimony and child support payments, and due to the theft of their major assets by their ex-wives in court. Yet not a peep of protest is heard against this travesty by the MO hypocrites.
If the MO "agunah" activists would like divorced Jewish women to move on with their lives, then its time the MO "rabbis" and activists promote fair divorce settlements based on Torah law and not on feminist police state law, that allow Jewish men to move on with their lives also.
Jail Becomes Home for Husband Stuck With Lifetime Alimony
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-26/jail-becomes-home-for-husband-stuck-with-lifetime-alimony.html
Mike S. We see from the literature that a man divorcing is wife when she simply wants out or finds him disgusting - is not considered a moral obligation by most poskim. This is clearly indicated by the statements that he should divorce her so that she doesn't commit adultery or convert to another religion - not that it is a moral obligation
DeleteWhile the Rambam does make a strong statement - that she should not be a prisonern - the majority of poskim make no such statement.
It also seems clear that those poskim who say that when it is clear that the marriage is over he should give her a get - are assuming that there is nothing for the husband to gain by not giving it and therefore he is not give the get because of spite. However the modern reality is that in order for the husband to have a possibliby of getting fair custody or that which the Torah says is his or not to have to pay more than the Torah obligates - the only option he has is the witholding of the get.
Basically we see then that contrary to the liberal modern view - Chazal and the Rishonim and Achronim do not view a woman's freedom from her marriage - just because she want to be free - as a desirable thing. In fact the poskim say that no pressure of any type - including telling him it is not nice - can be applied without the beis din determining that there is a significant and reasonable basis for her wanting out of the marriage. it is not enough for to say she wants a divorce.
There is a reason why the Torah and poskim create a very high barrier for a woman to be able to get out of the marriage and gave the husband and not the wife - of dissolving the marriage. Because it is viewed as better that a woman be married than unmarried. It is better that she be stuck in a marriage than that she drop her husband because she found someone she likes better. In fact by having an expensive kesuba we see that it is better that the husband be stuck in an unhappy marriage because he can't afford the divorce - than he should have the freedom of dropping her because he is bored with her. Likewise Rabbeinu Gershom decreed a man can not force a divorce - thus creating the ability of the wife to trap her husband in an unhappy marriage.
In short, the Torah and poskim clearly view that most of the time it is better to be stuck in an unhappy or mediocre marriage than to play the game of serial polygamy. Only if there is a very serious reason for divorce is it granted and beis din forces it.
Mike: Again, he has every moral and ethical right to maintain his marriage and his wife. Not only will Beis Din not require him to surrender his marriage and wife but he has every Torah, Halachic, moral and ethical right to maintain it. He is under no obligation whatsoever to give it up.
DeleteSecondly, if the wife wishes a divorce because she met a new guy and wants to marry him, in that case the teshuvos throughout the centuries especially stress he should not divorce her. That is an especially particular situation she ought to be denied a divorce. There can be no more an illegitimate reason for demanding a Get than that.
If someone wishes to be treated in a manner not in accordance with Torah and Halacha we do not honor that desire on the basis of what Hillel HaZaken said. That is a gross misapplication.
EmesL'Yaakov: I have no I have no idea why you think I am in favor of wives mistreating their husbands. I am not. But there aren't a bunch of commentators writing in justifying false charges and the like, so I didn't think I needed to say so.
DeleteBen Torah, R. Eidensohn: You need to address the real point which is not husbands who want to maintain their marriages but the overwhelming majority of these cases where the husband is not trying to maintain the marriage. R. Eidensohn seems to infer from something not said explicitly in the tshuvot that posekim assume that this is without cost to the husband, but I have cited (among many possibilities) Tshuvot of R. Moshe, R Herzog and R. Waldenberg that explicitly say otherwise. I haven't seen any tshuvah that says this is an acceptable tactic for leverage. R. Moshe's tshuvah explicitly states that even if the wife stole money from the husband that he cannot get a heter me'ah rabbonim without delivering a get.
It is true that the reason of Rabbeinu Tam and those who are with him is so that women will not be emboldened to flirt with other men on the assumption that they can always get a divorce. But many of the posekim point out that the gemara is explicit about compelling a get if the husband has a disease that merely gives him bad breath. Repeated belittling, arguments and so on are certainly grounds for a woman to want a divorce that the husband should grant even in cases where a bet din won't compel one. Asking for it is not asking to "treated in a manner not in accordance with the Torah." It is asking for basic human dignity.
Mike S. we come down to two points.
Delete1) contrary to your assertion it is clear in the majority of the rabbinic literature that there is no moral imperative to give a get when the relationship is clearly over. It is basically to prevent the wife from committing adultery or joining another religion. In other words the poskim don't talking in terms of human dignitiy or wife abuse.
2) Can a husband use the get as leverage to obtain a better deal concerning child custody and/or money?
Regard the 2nd point - I agree that Rav Moshe clearly says to give a divorce and work out the other details later. However he does not mention whether it wrong withhold the get when the husband is not concerned with being taken advantage of by his wife but to protect his relationship with his kids. This in fact is one of the issue raised in the case of Rav Reuven Feinstein grandson. It seems clear to me that Rav Moshe's concern is that the get not be withheld for the sole purpose of hurting the wife. You are reading that he is making an absolute rule that the get can not be used for leverage.
To clarify the latter point we need to find statements in the literature which explicity state that the get should not be used as leverage - even for an equitable settlement.
I have not found a single teshuva with a single statement to that effect. There clearly are clear statements that the husband should not cling to a relationship which is clearly dead. Therefore I understand Rav Moshe's statement in the context of this silence.
I would appreicate it if you could provide sources which says that the husband is not allowed to use the get under any circumstances as a tool to get an equitable settlement. After all, according to the clear halacha he has no need to give a get at all - why can't he his right to give a get as a bargaining chip. This obviously is not a new issue - where are the prohibition of such a practice? I am not talking about extortion - but something simple like shared custody.
DaasTorah, with all due respect, you're allowing Mike S. to take you for a ride in MO feminist fantasy land. The MO feminists like Mike S. continually use various methods of obfuscation to advance their anti-Torah, anti-male agenda.
DeleteThe case mentioned in your posting involves a Jewish wife who is litigating in non-Jewish courts, in which case she is most likely a moseres and moredes in halacha.
Where does Rav Moshe (or any other posek) ever say that if a Jewish wife is litigating in non-Jewish courts in violation of halacha, (ie she is a moredes and a moseres), that her husband has any obligation whatsoever to give her a GET? There is a tshuvah in Igros Moshe that seems to say on the contrary, that when the wife is a moredes, the husband may remarry without even obtaining a heter meah rabbanim.
I am not familiar with any written sources dealing explicitly with leverage over custody. The tshuvah I cited from Rav Moshe, although the specific case was about a heter meah rabbonim, seems pretty clear you cannot use a get for leverage over finances. He says:
Deleteכי ח"ו שהגאון רגמ"ה יתקן דבר תקלה לעגן בת ישראל איזו שהיא, ואף באופן שודאי חטפה משל בעלה איזה סך ממון לא תיקן ושום ב"ד דגאונים לא תיקנו ולא יתקנו באופן שיוכל הבעל לעגנה לגמרי או עד שתתן לו כמה שירצה, ובשביל עניני גיבוי ממון לא תיקנו ולא יתקנו שום תקנות שיהא ביד הבעל כח בעצמו לעשות כרצונו ולעגנה
He is very clearly not talking about extortion, nor even a more favorable settlement, but return of stolen goods to which he is certainly entitled and he still uses extremely strong language against withholding a get.
Regarding point 1, although I haven't time to look up citations right now, it seems very clear that, where the woman can demonstrate reasons why she does not want to continue the marriage, the only argument is over how much coercion may be applied. Among reasons I have seen in tshuvot are physical and verbal abuse, belittling the wife's family, lack of support, wasting the couple's assets, jail terms and a variety of diseases and deformities.
DeleteMike S. I have spent a number of hours with bar Ilan and google - and aside from Igros Moshe (E.H. 4:3) can not find any posek saying or implying that the husband should not use the get as leverage.
DeleteI find that silence astounding especially in light of the fact that extortion is so common. It certainly implies that the poskim find nothing wrong with it. If anyone has sources on this I would greatly appreciate seeing them. In light of this silence I don't see how you can take Rav Moshe's single comment as a policy statement about the get process.
Mike, the teshuva of Rav Moshe you cited only states that the husband can't get a Heter Meah Rabbonim without depositing a Get - even if outstanding financial issues are still pending resolution. The teshuva does not state that the husband cannot withhold the Get if he wants to remain married to his wife.
DeleteI have just translated Rav Moshe's teshuva - and it is obvious that he is not in agreement with your point. If he agreed with you then all he had to say is that a man can not use a get as leverage for what he wants. He clearly doesn't say that- here or anywhere else. He just keeps repeating that the decree of Rabbeiu Gershon can not be used as a means of remarrying without giving a get. Even if the get is witheld in order to get money - it simply can't be used that way. Or rather the gaonim never created the heter to enable the husband to extort money from his wife.
DeleteSo while heter meah rabbonim always requires depositing a valid get - giving the get does not have to be unconditional in other cases. Thus there is no problem for the husband using it for financial or custody issues.
Igros Moshe (E.H. 4:3): My view regarding heter me'ah rabbonim is well known – that even in the case of moredes it is required that the husband deposit a valid get that the wife is able to obtain at any time she wants and then is free to remarry. This requirement to deposit a get for the wife is required even if the husband has financial claims against the wife. That is because, chas v'shalom that Rabbeinu Gershom would create something which causes an impediment for an aguna – no matter who she is. And this is true even in the case where she definitely took a sum of money from her husband – the heter of Rabbeinu Gershom was not decreed to allow the husband to remarry [without giving a get.] No beis din of the Geonim allowed such a thing. They did not create a means for the husband remarrying by causing the wife to be refused a get unless she gave him what he demanded. They did not make a decree to allow the husband to collect money. And in general they did not make a decree which gave the husband the right to demand whatever he wanted with the threat that if she didn't comply she would remain an aguna. Since the Geonim did not create such a decree, any heter given by beis din in such circumstances is not valid – even if it were signed by more than 1000 rabbis. Therefore the husband still is prohibited by the decree of Rabbeinu Gershon to marry another woman – if he hasn't previously divorced his first wife. What I had signed was only that I permit the husband to remarry according to the halacha i.e., he must deposit a valid get that she can take whenever she wants. This I state again in this case – in particular to the relatives of the husband – that it is not relevant to have any heter to remarry which depositing a valid get that she can readily obtain without any impediment. On this I sign for the sake of truth that there should not be distortions in the laws of the Torah.
@DaasTorah - "I find that silence astounding especially in light of the fact that extortion is so common": By accepting the word extortion, we are again allowing the feminist "agunah" camp to define our intellectual frames of reference in misleading ways that are exploited to justify the MO feminist agenda.
DeleteThe MO feminist "agunah" movement is really advocating immediate divorce whenever demanded by the wife for any reason, and without any requirements that the husband's halachic rights will be respected by the wife after divorce. Most of these so-called agunah cases involve claims of "MAOS ALI" by wife where the husband is not required to divorce her.
If a Jewish husband is NOT chayav l'garesh (required to provide a GET to his wife), he is required to live with his wife and meet his halachic obligations to her. An informed Jewish husband may realize that the divorce process can destroy him and his relationship with his children when his wife uses the civil courts against him, and thus he will exercise his halachic right to refuse divorce, and he will continue to live with his wife.
When a husband is willing to keep his wife, but he proposes an optional Torah based divorce settlement that will allow him to continue a normal life after the divorce without being destroyed, this does not constitute extortion. We should not allow the MO feminists to define the husband's proposals as extortion.
Is there any possiblity that the demands of the husband can be considered extortion. For example if both the husband and wife have decided the marriage is dead - can he demand a million dolars for the get? can he demand she never see their kids again. I agree that there are some demands which are not extortion - but do you agree that there are some that are?
Delete@DaasTorah, yes there are some demands that could be labeled "extortion". My understanding is that if the husband is NOT chayav l'garesh, he could demand any amount he wants for the GET. It is also my understanding that a non-moredes Jewish wife, who is not chayav l'hisgaresh, might be able to demand any amount to accept a GET. The feminists never discuss this second scenario, which I believe the rabbanut said is common.
DeleteI believe ehrlich rabbanim advise husbands to only make reasonable demands for a GET, which include a parenting schedule preserving the father's relationship with his children, and allowing the husband some financial resources to get remarried. Most intelligent men would gladly accept such an arrangement in return for giving a GET.
As Emes correctly stated below, most of the high profile "agunah" cases could be avoided if the fanatically feminist YU/MO "agunah" rabbis would convince the women to recognize their husband's legitimate halachic rights,instead of giving the women a blank check to wreck their husband's life in archaos.
I am astonished that anyone can take Rav Moshe's tshuva as support for the idea that a man can withhold a get for financial reasons. Even with language like "takala" and " They did not create a means for the husband remarrying by causing the wife to be refused a get unless she gave him what he demanded. They did not make a decree to allow the husband to collect money. And in general they did not make a decree which gave the husband the right to demand whatever he wanted with the threat that if she didn't comply she would remain an aguna." (I would have translated lo tiknu v'lo yitkenu" a little differently as more like "No beit din of Geonim established, nor would they establish..." or even "They didn't and wouldn't conceivably establish ..." but that is a relatively minor difference.) He addressed a heter meah rabbonim because that was the specific shailah, but given the strength of his language I don't see how you can infer that he thinks there are other cases where it is perfectly OK to withhold a get for money.
DeleteMike S. Rav Moshe is specifically referring to why he there is no heter meah rabbonim for a husband who is withholing a get for financial reasons. You can not generalize from this that a get can not be used as leverage.
DeleteIf Rav Moshe held the principle you claim he has - he would simply stated that a get can't be used to obtain money. He doesn't say that but repeatedly states that the takana of Rabbeinu Gershon was not created for that purpose.
Emes l'Yaakov wrote: @DaasTorah - "I find that silence astounding especially in light of the fact that extortion is so common": By accepting the word extortion, we are again allowing the feminist "agunah" camp to define our intellectual frames of reference in misleading ways that are exploited to justify the MO feminist agenda.
DeleteNot sure what is wrong with using the word extortion. Extortion means a threat to cause harm if money isn't paid. The harm doesn't have to be illegal. If I threaten to reveal your secret "you flunked kindergarten" if you don't pay money - that is called extortion.
If the husband said I won't give a get unless I get a million dolloars - that is extortion.
ben torah how sure are you that even if the husband was halachikally obligated to divorce her that if shje kis lo tzias dina and runs to arko'oys her rights don't fall away?
ReplyDeleteMy primary point is that under normal circumstances a wife cannot force a husband to divorce her simply because she wants a divorce. A husband is normally under no obligation to divorce his wife even if she wants one.
DeleteAnd if a wife runs to arkoyos, it likely is an indicator that she is halachicly not entitled to a Get in the first place.
Bottom ,line is that even if she would halachikally be entitled to a get, if she is in arko'oys i do not believe any bais din is allowed to give her a get.
ReplyDeleteShe is not entitled to a GET. He doesnt have to give one. If he wants a SECULAR divorce, the secular authorities say he must give a GET. Its not like this law is new. He should have thought about this before getting civilly married or married in NY.
DeleteWell, perhaps he does NOT want a secular divorce OR a GET. He wants to stay married. That is his prerogative.
DeleteJames the law says he must remove all barriers. By giving a get meusah he is not removing all barriers. By depositing a get for her to retrieve when she is ready to leave arko'oys he is removing all barriers. the law is not only unconstitutional but illogical and impossible to fulfill.
ReplyDeleteHere are some quotes from Rabbi Chaim Malinowitz' critique of the New York State Get Bill on JLaw http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/getart1.html
ReplyDeleteIn the view of this writer, the problems with the New York State Get Bill are so many and varied, that the wonder is not the opposition it has met, but rather that it has any support whatsoever. Many contend that the Jewish community is immeasurably better off without the bill than with it since, as we shall see, the bill represents a dangerous time-bomb to the validity of many Gittin. Hence, ultimately, it endangers the sanctity of the Jewish family.
In addition, ironically, the bill may actually be counterproductive. The halachic process, which, under most circumstances solves Igun problems when followed through, is undercut by "solutions" such as these. By encouraging people to avoid a Bet Din and avoid having to justify their demands by the standards of halacha, it only helps frustrate Rabbanim and Rabbinic Judges who seek halachic solutions. It teaches litigants to ignore the Bet Din process and rulings and, indeed, to second-guess them. The overwhelming majority of Igun cases, after all, are solved -- by rabbinic leadership along with community pressure. If the public is taught by well-meaning and not-so-well-meaning activists that the halachic route is to be avoided and ignored, then although there may be a few agunot helped by (one hopes) valid Gittin, there will be many many more who find their problems compounded.
Apart from the bill's flaws with respect to the validity of Gittin, there are three other anti-halachic effects. In the opinion of this writer, these effects are so manifest, so incontrovertible, that it is mystifying that any Orthodox Rabbi, much less any rabbinic institution, can be in favor of it.
I. The first basic flaw in the Get Bill is that it is intended to aid in procuring a Get -- even if there is no reason according to Jewish law to assume a Get to be appropriate.[...]
II. Furthermore, resorting to the secular courts to resolve disputes is strictly forbidden in Jewish Law.14 This transgression is described by the Shulchan Aruch as akin to blasphemy and "taking up arms" against the Torah.15 The Rashba16 warns against confusing this prohibition with the dictum Dina D'malchuta Dina ("the law of the land is law").17 Even if both parties agree to go, and in fact stipulate in writing that they will utilize the civil court system, it remams forbidden by halacha.18[...]
III. As we have noted, the prohibition of resorting to the secular courts holds true even if every court action happens to follow all the rules of the Shulchan Aruch. If there are any differences, the additional issue of out-and-out theft arises, if the courts award money or privileges to either party.21 (Even in circumstances where one had received permission from a Bet Din to "use the courts" one is prohibited from keeing any monies he is not entitled to according to halacha.)
The Get Bill encourages a woman to use the civil courts to set rates of maintenance and "equitable distribution despite the fact that she might not be entitled to that money according to Jewish law. [...]
please don't make overgeneral accusations. focus on the issues and the facts. For example I just rejected a comment of the form, "Rabbi X doesn't care about the halacha"
ReplyDelete> 1. Is this not against the constitution in terms of separation of church and state?
ReplyDeleteIf the church goes to the state and asks for help isn't it relinquishing its right to separation?
2. Is this not Stalinist behavior in terms of punishing someone even before the case
Sure. Go tell the judge.
3. Defendant’s arguments have been heard? Is the Defendant not at least entitled to a fair trial
Entitled to and actually getting are, in reality, two separate things.
4. Do not Rav Elyashiv zt”l, Rav Menashe Klein, Rav Moshe Sternbuch and even the Aguda and every other posek with some inkling of yiras shomayim hold that this will produce an invalid get me’useh?
Does the judge care?
1. Did the Beis Din go to secular court? It seems to me that the plaintiff-wife did that.
Delete4. The Judge ought to care, because his order has now made it impossible for the woman to receive a kosher get. The exact opposite of the purpose of the get law.
Why not post Rabbi Broyde's review of the GET Law as well as Rav Moshe's teshuva.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.jlaw.com/Articles/get_exchange2.html
DeleteJames,
ReplyDeleteWhy not post the Shulchan Aruch, Ramo, Gro and the other major commentators in Even Hoezer 77:2 and :3 where it is clearly stated that one may not coerce with MOUS OLEI? Does anyone disagree with this besides some people today who don't know the Shulchan Aruch, and if they do know it and disagree with it, what does that say? And what about the Rashbo teshuvose VII:414 that says the same thing, that in MOUS OLEI we cannot force a GET and no coercion is permitted.
Huh?? We have discussed this before. I am not going to discuss it again.
DeleteThe Malinowitz article was part of a larger discussion between him and Broyde. My only point was to suggest that both articles be published.
Rabbi Broyde's article is found here
Deletehttp://www.jlaw.com/Articles/get_exchange2.html
R. Eidensohn:
ReplyDeleteThis may be on interest. It is regarding the infamous Orthodox Feminist Mendel Epstein:
http://5tjt.com/a-jewish-wifes-rights/
I vaguely recall in another case that when a Judge tried to do something similar, the beis din announced that any get given under the circumstances would be a get meuseh and invalid under halakha, and thus it was impossible for the husband to give a valid get. That got the judge to back down quickly. (In any event, it is a violation of Due Process to require a party to a secular litigation to do something impossible.)
ReplyDeletePerhaps the beis din should consider doing something similar here.
Rabbi Eidennsohn,
ReplyDeleteA widely cited study concludes that in general, 2/3 of divorces in the U.S. are initiated by women.
See:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=713110
Are you aware of any statistics as to what this percentage is in the Orthodox community? Are there any studies on the reasons for divorce in the Orthodox community?
The article linked above states: "As far as the proliferation of divorces in the frum community, Rabbi Epstein says that the inordinate number of divorces comes about as a result of infidelity in marriages. He did not specifically refer to dalliances of this sort that start on the Internet but said that they start very often in shul and with people coming and going freely in and out of each other’s homes."
As the Yom haDin is approaching, Torah Jews have a chiyuv to assist their Jewish brothers being ruthlessly persecuted in the feminist family courts in the USA. In addition to the Jewish husband mentioned in this posting who is being persecuted by an arrogant, un-American, tyrant judge, another case of a Jewish husband being horribly persecuted in family court has been recently publicized:
ReplyDeleteJail Becomes Home for Husband Stuck With Lifetime Alimony
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-26/jail-becomes-home-for-husband-stuck-with-lifetime-alimony.html
It appears that Sharona Grossberg, the wife of the Jewish man being unjustly jailed, attends Congregation Keter Torah in Teaneck, NJ. See the Mazal Tov section in this link:
http://www.ketertorah.org/artman/publish/article_535.shtml
Perhaps someone could mention (politely, without harassment) to Ms. Grossberg and the rabbi of the shul, Rabbi Shalom Baum, that Mrs. Grossberg's alleged actions in a non-Jewish court against her ex-husband are a horrible violation of Torah ethics and a great injustice, for which Yom Kippur can have no atonement effect.
rabbibaum@ketertorah.org
Wow, that witch ex-wife who is putting her literally poor ex in jail for not paying her exorbitant sums he simply doesn't have actually considers herself Orthodox?
DeleteWow.
The fact is that under Halacha an ex-wife gets no alimony other than the one-time payment specified in the Kesuba. If she utilizes secular court to force him to pay alimony she is a rasha and a thief.
first of all, such nystate court rulings happen all the time (interestingly, esp in queens county; dont know why, besides poor judicial education.)
ReplyDeleteben torah's suggestion of go to a conserv or reform bet din wont work, since the NYS get law requires one to use a get that is acceptable to the rav who was mesader kiddushin (but it would be a good legal strategy, whereby the court would have to consider the mesader kiddushin's opinion, thus leading to appeal court review. however, this will only get the judge angry, and he'll cut visitation for "other reasons". esp since the judge (and appellate division) know that this will require review of religious matters, thus rendering the get law unconstitutional. they dont want to do that (the fix is in; it was in 20 years ago.) so they'll just use "other reasons" and leave it at that.)
as for doing a get, and settle financial matters later (per igrot moshe mentioned), that only works halachically if the bet din (or mesader get) know the ex wife will comply. here we know she will NOT comply, so they wont allow a final get without a final agreement. i would suggest having the judge sign the final agreement, and if the judge refuses, that is proof his client (the wife) will not comply.
No American court can force anyone to use any specific religious denomination or religious court. Freedom of religion allows any party to choose whichever religious denomination they wish. So if the husband tells the court that he believes in Conservative Judaism and not Orthodox Judaism, which is against his religion, the judge and court cannot force him to engage in an Orthodox beis din.
Delete"requires one to use a get that is acceptable to the rav who was mesader kiddushin" - This statement appears to be blatantly FALSE. If anyone argues otherwise, show us a web link to any NY state statutes mentioning the Jewish GET.
DeleteMy understanding is that the blatantly unconstitutional NY GET law cunningly sidesteps the US Constitution by refering to "barriers to remarriage", while actually being directed squarely at the Jewish GET.
It is an absolute travesty that the so-called "Orthodox" organizations like the Agudah and OU sit idly by while the constitutional rights of Orthodox Jewish men are trampled in the dust by un-American Marxist-feminist, tyrant judges and lawyers.
Senior rabbanim involved in GITTIN matters informed me that the Agudah's rabbinic advisers on GITTIN matters are known "pro-agunah" activists who will not lift a finger to oppose the rampant GET MEOSO and civil rights violations against Jewish men in NY State. In any other state, courts would have tossed out any litigation involving a Jewish GET.
I just love the way you are playing both sides of the legal coin here. on the one hand you are up in arms about the fact that the poor husbands are being forced to give a GET by a civil authority. Yet at the same time you are upset about how it is a violation of their civil rights.
DeleteSeems to me you are trying to have it both ways - when it suits you the laws and societal rules of the civil authority are good. When it does not suit you, then you get upset at how it it violates halacha and should be shot down. At least be consistent and drop all attempts at using civil law ...
EMES leyaakov did not mean civil rights but instead he meant that the AGUDA and the OU are doing nothing to protech halacha integrity i.e a mans halchic rights
ReplyDeleteIt must also be noted that Jewish Law gives a husband ALL assets from a marriage (including income the wife earned while married) save for assets the wife owned prior to marriage which she keeps upon divorce.
ReplyDeleteAnd Torah Law provides no recurring alimony payments, save the one-time kesuba payment.
If a divorcing wife invokes secular courts to give her more than Torah Law provides her, such as demanding "equitable" (50/50) distribution of marital assets and property (or requests alimony payments) she is stealing that money from her husband and he would be well within his Halachic rights to withhold a Get until such time as she drops her requests for those unjustified assets/payments and returns any property or money she illegitimately received.
this is the first nys get law: http://law.onecle.com/new-york/domestic-relations/DOM0253_253.html
ReplyDeleteit says any marriage that was performed by a religious functionary (what we call "mesader kiddushin") is subject to this section (number 6 "under the principles held by the clergyman or minister who has solemnized the marriage, by reason of the other party's commission or withholding of any voluntary act.") (voluntary act = get; in this book)
i am surprised no catholic has challenged an ex spouse for not agreeing to an annulment (which is an even bigger embarrasement for catholics.)
yes, the constitutional basis for all this is very thin; however, you forget that the "fix is in" thanks to our esteemed assembly speaker, who regularly flouts his own rabbonim on other (family values; yeshiva subsidies) issues. as long as agudah and ohel etc get their regular govt grants, no one cares.
Rav Moshe Feinstein was opposed to the NY Get law on the basis that any Get obtained under it is an invalid Get (Me'usa).
DeleteThe Agudah never supported the Get Law.
(Catholics don't have an issue since they will remarry after civil divorce even if their ex-spouse doesn't acquiesce to an annulment.)
The Get Law can be overturned by either the State or Federal courts despite Assembly Speaker Silver's support of it. The trick is to get someone who is in the process of a Get situation, and is negativelty affected by the Get Law, to challenge the law in court. And then to appeal the decision through the appeals court process until it is finally and permanently declared unconstitutional and overturned.
the agudah goes both ways, depending on which particular "askan" you ask, and what type of govt grants he gets.
Deletecatholics -- its the "ex spouse that doesnt acquiesce", that i am writing about. why doesnt he / she challenge this in court, with attendant political power of the (right wing part of the) church?
the get law will not be overturned, since, as i write, the "fix is in".
and the trick is not to get "someone" negatively affected, but to get a woman "negatively affected". such a legal challenge will be much more effective.
and there are plently of women "negativelly affected", in todays's legal environment.
DeleteThe law(current) goes on to say:
DeleteNothing in this section shall be construed to require any party to consult with any clergyman or minister to determine whether there exists any such religious or conscientious restraint or inhibition. It shall not be deemed a "barrier to remarriage" within the meaning of this section if the restraint or inhibition cannot be removed by the party's voluntary act.
The nonsense emanating from the feminist camp is ridiculous. Even if there was a halocho to force a Get, there is a halocho of someone who is lo tzias dina and who went to arko'oys. The halocho is clear: such a person even in a non Get situation is put in cheirem and ain nizkokim lo. They have no rights in bais din whatsoever. That is the halocho! Ask a well known brooklyn yeshiva which was lo tzias dina and then tried to use bar matrah to force a sale of a building.
ReplyDeleteA woman in arko'oys or for that matter anyone in arko'oys has no rights! And this was confirmed as the halocho by the kol koreh of 70 gedolim who stated that it is ossur for any frum yid to marry such a woman even if she receives a Get. What about your ridiculous claims of v'ohato le'reiacho komoycho etc:
The answer is so simple but i will spell it out for our MO readers: The torah is not Christianity which says turn the other cheek. This woman is not some poor agunah whose husband disappeared without a trace but a rashanta who is meirim yad b'toras moshe rabbeinu who is using a court system to destroy her husband. So lets get real hear: the typical case involves false orders of protection, prevention of reasonable access to the children and extortion of monies that are according to halocho pure genaivoh. Reb Moshe was not talking about a case of a woman in arko'oys but of a woman grabbing something so using that t'shuva is totally irrelevant. Furthermore another difference is reb moshe is talking about where she stole one time - not repeatedly and ongoing like maintenance and child support paid for the next 20 years. furthermore did reb moshe say you can force a get in this case of a one time grabbing or merely that it was ethically wrong to withhold the get?
A woman out to destroy a man in arko'oys cannot try and use ethics to force a get. she is lo tzias dina and even in a case where bais din could force a get since she is lo tzias dina assuming the husband has summonsed her to bais din then bais din are not allowed to listen to her claims until she does t'shuva.
Tshuva entails niot just an apology but picking up THE TAB FOR ALL EXPENSES INCURRED IN REGARDS TO HIM DEFENDING HIMSELF IN SUCH LITIGATION- including lawyers, printing, fake forensics etc. If the husband had to sell assets at a loss etc he should go to bais din over these expenses.
MO feminists stop fake concern for those that are oyver almost all of the 10 commondments including chillul Hashem denying the existence of hashem, stopping children honoring their father, genaivoh, in some cases incarceration for being unable to pay what they can't afford, false swearing of oaths, jealousy of the husbands hard earned assets etc.
Such a woman you wait until her hair turns grey or white unless she does teshuva.
Lastly try let us post on the MO web sites our views and you will notice we are not allowed to.
PS: One of tbhe signatories to this Kol Koreh was rav Pam of torah v'daas. I don't think some MO blogger understand v'ohavto le'raicho komocho better than rav Pam who had a reputation for being saintly.
ReplyDeleteIronically it is the MO who are the predominant cause of the fake agunah problem today. If women would not play out of proportion hardball and try and destroy their husbands but would follow the halocho, the men I know who wont give gittin would have quickly given their wives gittin. If the women would know that instead of the support of fake rabbis and the MO world these women would be ostrasized for being in arko'oys this fake agunah problem would largely disappear.
The so called NY Get Law. Would someone please show how this forces a husband to give a Get? Reading it, it seems to say that if he doesn't want a divorce he doesn't give a get, if he wants a divorce he gives a Get. How is that a meusah?
ReplyDeleteDomestic Relations
§ 253. Removal of barriers to remarriage. 1. This section applies only
to a marriage solemnized in this state or in any other jurisdiction by a
person specified in subdivision one of section eleven of this chapter.
2. Any party to a marriage defined in subdivision one of this section
who commences a proceeding to annul the marriage or for a divorce must
allege, in his or her verified complaint: (i) that, to the best of his
or her knowledge, that he or she has taken or that he or she will take,
prior to the entry of final judgment, all steps solely within his or her
power to remove any barrier to the defendant's remarriage following the
annulment or divorce; or (ii) that the defendant has waived in writing
the requirements of this subdivision.
3. No final judgment of annulment or divorce shall thereafter be
entered unless the plaintiff shall have filed and served a sworn
statement: (i) that, to the best of his or her knowledge, he or she has,
prior to the entry of such final judgment, taken all steps solely within
his or her power to remove all barriers to the defendant's remarriage
following the annulment or divorce; or (ii) that the defendant has
waived in writing the requirements of this subdivision.
4. In any action for divorce based on subdivisions five and six of
section one hundred seventy of this chapter in which the defendant
enters a general appearance and does not contest the requested relief,
no final judgment of annulment or divorce shall be entered unless both
parties shall have filed and served sworn statements: (i) that he or she
has, to the best of his or her knowledge, taken all steps solely within
his or her power to remove all barriers to the other party's remarriage
following the annulment or divorce; or (ii) that the other party has
waived in writing the requirements of this subdivision.
5. The writing attesting to any waiver of the requirements of
subdivision two, three or four of this section shall be filed with the
court prior to the entry of a final judgment of annulment or divorce.
Part 2
ReplyDelete6. As used in the sworn statements prescribed by this section "barrier
to remarriage" includes, without limitation, any religious or
conscientious restraint or inhibition, of which the party required to
make the verified statement is aware, that is imposed on a party to a
marriage, under the principles held by the clergyman or minister who has
solemnized the marriage, by reason of the other party's commission or
withholding of any voluntary act. Nothing in this section shall be
construed to require any party to consult with any clergyman or minister
to determine whether there exists any such religious or conscientious
restraint or inhibition. It shall not be deemed a "barrier to
remarriage" within the meaning of this section if the restraint or
inhibition cannot be removed by the party's voluntary act. Nor shall it
be deemed a "barrier to remarriage" if the party must incur expenses in
connection with removal of the restraint or inhibition and the other
party refuses to provide reasonable reimbursement for such expenses.
"All steps solely within his or her power" shall not be construed to
include application to a marriage tribunal or other similar organization
or agency of a religious denomination which has authority to annul or
dissolve a marriage under the rules of such denomination.
7. No final judgment of annulment or divorce shall be entered,
notwithstanding the filing of the plaintiff's sworn statement prescribed
by this section, if the clergyman or minister who has solemnized the
marriage certifies, in a sworn statement, that he or she has solemnized
the marriage and that, to his or her knowledge, the plaintiff has failed
to take all steps solely within his or her power to remove all barriers
to the defendant's remarriage following the annulment or divorce,
provided that the said clergyman or minister is alive and available and
competent to testify at the time when final judgment would be entered.
8. Any person who knowingly submits a false sworn statement under this
section shall be guilty of making an apparently sworn false statement in
the first degree and shall be punished in accordance with section 210.40
of the penal law.
9. Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize any court
to inquire into or determine any ecclesiastical or religious issue. The
truth of any statement submitted pursuant to this section shall not be
the subject of any judicial inquiry, except as provided in subdivision
eight of this section.
I have some questions.
ReplyDeleteIf a wife today refuses to accept a Get and the husband simply walks over to her and hands her a Get, granted he shouldn't have under Rabbeinu Gershom, but once he did so what is the net effect? If the divorce full and final? Does he suffer any consequences for forcing the Get on her unwillingly?
When a Jewish couple divorces, is it true that the husband is halachicly entitled to full ownership of the marital home, other properties and all bank accounts and other monies while the wife only gets the amount prescribed in the kesuba plus any assets she owned prior to marriage?
regarding your first question see
Deletehttp://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/04/forcing-divorce-on-mentally-ill-wife.html
So if a guy's wife today refuses to accept a Get what would be worse? If he simply hands her a Get against her will or to go to the time and great expense of getting a Heter Meah Rabbonim? Why go through the trouble of getting a HMR, which may be very difficult to impossible to successfully obtain, when he can just give to her?
DeleteAlternatively, he could simply get remarried without giving his first wife a Get. Doing this would be a violation of the Cherem RG but forcing a get on her is a violation of the same Cherem RG, which your above link says (per the Rema) is successful. It seems one violation of CRG or another would be equal.
If he has trouble obtaining a HMR why should he remain stuck and unable to get married when he can choose to go with one of the above routes? This way he can continue to fulfill the Mitzvah D'Oraysa of Pru U'rvu by remarrying.
Interesting question for which I don't have meaningful answers. Otzer HaPoskim has a long discussion of the significance of takanosof Rabbeinu Gershon.
DeleteThere is a related issue of a divorce where the husband was forced to give a get (even though the halacha doesn't require it.) And then she remarries. Does she need to divorce her second husband? See the Rosh.
"There is a related issue of a divorce where the husband was forced to give a get (even though the halacha doesn't require it.) And then she remarries. Does she need to divorce her second husband? See the Rosh."
DeleteThat sounds like a simple question whether the Get was a Get Me'usa or not. If it was then the wife is still married to her first husband and has to leave her second husband. (Without a divorce since the second marriage was never valid.) And she would have to get divorced from her first husband, too, due to her adultery with her second husband. If it wasn't a Get Me'usa then she was validly divorced and properly remarried and may remain married to the second husband. Sounds pretty straight forward (to me) as being a question whether the Get from husband 1 was invalid or not.
its shabbat in israel now, but i'm in jersey.
Deleteregarding preference of taking a second wife vs forcing a divorce aganst the women's desire, there is extensive discussion among achronim on this issue. the general consensus is to force a divorce against the women's will. for ashkenazim. (except for RCA bet din, which doesnt do such gitten. i couldnt get a straight answer from them on if they would allow a member rav to do siddur kiddushin on someone who has a heter; they claim they were never asked such a question, but even rabbi rackman z"l told me (unsolicited comment) he did it when the ex wife was doing it for spite.)
i had a client a few years ago (whose wife was syrian; he was ashkenazi) and a parsi ( = persian) rav offered to have a get written and dropped in her property against her will (per her attorney's instructions, she claimed.) it later turned out that she was divorced, and he was NOT. (more extortion.) the syrian bet din wouldnt recognize this anyway (they are, in practice, extremely wary of such practice$, but can be per$uaded if the husband is syrian.)
Robert Kohen 1:28 middle paragrapsph -- it all depends on if a future wife is willing to agree (and a mesader kiddushin)
re rav e 208am last para -- similar issues about a brother with physical yibum issues, if a physically able brother is around. straight mishna, but i assume poskim try to solve such a problem.
MiMedinat HaYam: Thank you for the response. What doesn't add up for me from your posted comment is that the husband can simply seek out a known rabbi or beis din that is willing to do this. He can do his research beforehand and be sure he uses a rabbi who is open to the idea of forcing a Get upon his wife unwillingly. And then use a known rabbi who will be willing to be mesader kedushin at a subsequent marriage despite the previous way the Get was issued. So he simply needs to find a rabbi that holds and accepts this is a valid option for him under the circumstances. (Or alternatively find a rabbi willing to be mesader kedushin while he is still married to his first wife, without having given her a Get.)
DeleteAnd, furthermore, who says he even needs a rabbi or beis din? He can, alternatively, simply hire a sofer to write the Get (without any rabbinical involvement.) Hire a messenger to deliver the Get to his wife (or deliver it himself.) And, even, use a non-rabbi or any willing kollel guy with smicha (thus technically a rabbi of he davka wants a rabbi) to be mesader kedushin at a subsequent marriage. (Either after a forced Get or even no Get.) The point being that under Jewish Law a Get can be validly issued WITHOUT a rabbi or beis din. And so can, under Jewish Law, a marriage be fully consummated WITHOUT a rabbi.
robert k -- i'm not advocating what you say, but for arguments sake, if a man moves into a new community with a woman, no one will ask to see ketubot / gitten / pturim. unless an ex wife brings up the issue to the new community. (eg: when i moved to jersey, no one asked me / my wife for her ketubah, or my / my wifes ptur.) my wife had no problem going to the local mikvah (upon payment of the annual fee; i presume they would have let her in without payment, too.) assuming the mikvah is the only potential for actual problems.
Deleteyes, get two / ten eidim, buy a preprinted ketubah, hire a chazzan to sing, a caterer to give food, and voila, one is married, no matter how much the local rav doesnt like the idea (and the local rav will require a get .if chas veshalom, something happens.) i know of cases where its done (including in yerushalyim, where they supposedly do not allow it. and the vindictive ex wife in that case is still dragging out the civil divorce after over five years of litigation.)