kudos to Rabbi Oliver. Well said. The time has come to expose the vicious lies and distortions of ORA and other corrupt rabbis. Let me remind the public that the Talmud cites several times a concept of "TESHEV AD SHETALBIN ROSHA" translated "let her wait till her hair turns gray". This concept refers to a woman in certain circumstances that her actions or that of her fathers actions will cause her to remain without a GET till her hair turns gray(a euphemism that she is not entitled to a GET until she remedies what needs to be remedied). This illustrates that our sages do not agree with ORA that a GET cannot be withheld.
Discussion of the so-called "agunah" issue can often become very charged.
While I doubt that many fake agunahs will change her position based on this paper, nevertheless we thank Rabbi Oliver for presenting clear and coherent "talking points" on this issue.
I think that these "talking points" are especially important for those husbands who find themselves in the unfortunate position of having to refuse giving a Get due to the viciousness they have been subjected to.
It's vital that the husbands should effectively be able to defend their difficult position; to themselves and to the community. They need to be able to articulate to themselves the justification for what they're doing, and to defend their unpopular position in their social sphere.
Yasher Koach for empowering these unfortunate gentlemen!
But according to halacha child support is indeed 100% the father's responsibility. So much so that a woman who is widowed while still nursing is entitled to claim a fee from the husband's estate as a wet nurse for nursing her own child.
According to halacha, only a beis din can determine the amount and type of child support mandatory, not a non-Jewish court. And according to halacha, a father can provide his support directly to the child without giving the money to the mother.
A get is not a contract. It is a unilateral act by the husband of dissolving the marriage. The Torah says that it has to be done in writing.
The correct legal term for it is a "writ" -- a legal document embodying the order and authority of the one who issued it. (In Anglo-American tradition, a writ was issued by the king and later by the king's court. In the Torah, the husband is authorized to dissolve the marriage, so it represents his authority to do that..)
Who is Yehoishophot Oliver? Is he a recognized halachic authority? Although he provides lots of sources, he clearly weaves his own opinions through this piece, and given his stance, it is plausible that he may have omitted legitimate sources that disagree with some points raised. Please can we see a biography of the author?
Whether the court-ordered child support is in violation of the halacha will depend, then, on whether the woman went to court on her own or with the permission of the beit-din because the husband refused either its jurisdiction or to obey its judgement.
If she went to secular court without a beis din's authorization, it certainly is a violation of halacha and any result from court halachicly invalid. If it was with a beis din's authorization, she may only accept a court award judgement up to how much halacha would provide, not larger even if the secular court awards more.
kudos to Rabbi Oliver. Well said. The time has come to expose the vicious lies and distortions of ORA and other corrupt rabbis. Let me remind the public that the Talmud cites several times a concept of "TESHEV AD SHETALBIN ROSHA" translated "let her wait till her hair turns gray". This concept refers to a woman in certain circumstances that her actions or that of her fathers actions will cause her to remain without a GET till her hair turns gray(a euphemism that she is not entitled to a GET until she remedies what needs to be remedied). This illustrates that our sages do not agree with ORA that a GET cannot be withheld.
ReplyDeleteWhat an excellent and very needed essay. Zechus horabim tolui bochem!
ReplyDeleteDiscussion of the so-called "agunah" issue can often become very charged.
ReplyDeleteWhile I doubt that many fake agunahs will change her position based on this paper, nevertheless we thank Rabbi Oliver for presenting clear and coherent "talking points" on this issue.
I think that these "talking points" are especially important for those husbands who find themselves in the unfortunate position of having to refuse giving a Get due to the viciousness they have been subjected to.
It's vital that the husbands should effectively be able to defend their difficult position; to themselves and to the community. They need to be able to articulate to themselves the justification for what they're doing, and to defend their unpopular position in their social sphere.
Yasher Koach for empowering these unfortunate gentlemen!
But according to halacha child support is indeed 100% the father's responsibility. So much so that a woman who is widowed while still nursing is entitled to claim a fee from the husband's estate as a wet nurse for nursing her own child.
ReplyDeleteAccording to halacha, only a beis din can determine the amount and type of child support mandatory, not a non-Jewish court. And according to halacha, a father can provide his support directly to the child without giving the money to the mother.
ReplyDeleteA get is not a contract. It is a unilateral act by the husband of dissolving the marriage. The Torah says that it has to be done in writing.
ReplyDeleteThe correct legal term for it is a "writ" -- a legal document embodying the order and authority of the one who issued it. (In Anglo-American tradition, a writ was issued by the king and later by the king's court. In the Torah, the husband is authorized to dissolve the marriage, so it represents his authority to do that..)
Who is Yehoishophot Oliver? Is he a recognized halachic authority? Although he provides lots of sources, he clearly weaves his own opinions through this piece, and given his stance, it is plausible that he may have omitted legitimate sources that disagree with some points raised. Please can we see a biography of the author?
ReplyDeleteWhether the court-ordered child support is in violation of the halacha will depend, then, on whether the woman went to court on her own or with the permission of the beit-din because the husband refused either its jurisdiction or to obey its judgement.
ReplyDeleteIf she went to secular court without a beis din's authorization, it certainly is a violation of halacha and any result from court halachicly invalid. If it was with a beis din's authorization, she may only accept a court award judgement up to how much halacha would provide, not larger even if the secular court awards more.
ReplyDeleteHe's a moron.
ReplyDelete