One of the areas of great relevance to the contemporary religious Jewish community is what happens to financial assets when a couple divorce. While there clearly is an emphasis on equitable division in secular law - the same is not so according to halacha.
According to the accepted halacha the husband owns everything except what the wife brought into the marriage. Therefore split of property and assets and giving the wife alimony and child support - has no basis in halacha. In fact if the wife is given these by a secular court, it is considered theft since she has no right to them.
One of the attempts to change this is a Rema which says that we follow the common custom in division. But does dina d'malchusa constitute the minhag? That is a discussion for another time.
I was recently told of an approach which says that the above is only relevant when the wife either deserts her husband or says he disgusts her and demands a Get. Is it different if the husband deserts the wife and demands a Get from her? [to be continued]
> But does dina d'malchusa constitute the minhag? That is a discussion for another time.
ReplyDeleteBit of a cop-out answer since there are sources that would say that since secular law demands equal division (ha! like that ever happens) it is the accepted minhag.
If the wife is a moredes, and should not get any kesuba, does the husband still have an obligation to his Children? Who is supposed to provide for their chinuch? Their clothing, food and shelter? What do the rabbanim of today say about schooling till high school which is the norm today, unlike back in the day?
ReplyDeleteit is a major issue - can't just toss off your cop out reply
ReplyDeleteAh! This is my theme with the NYS Court of Appeals. NYS courts could rule only in money matters. Susan’s injecting Yemima in her court papers, may be the reason the NYS courts will agree to review the entire matter, going back to July 1991 when Rivka Haut handed me in my home in Brooklyn court papers her husband prepared.
ReplyDeleteRivka Haut and Irwin Haut testified against me in court (lies) to convince Judge Rigler and his law clerk Larry Rothbart that I deserted Susan, which I didn’t, for Susan deserted me, as we know today. Susan wanted all my money, which she would get if she proves I deserted her.
Here's some of Susan’s stuff against Yemima.
Susan writes to the Court 12/8/2014:
“2.Mr. Aranoff's Exhibit B is the Hon. Judge Pesce's letter of September 13, 1996 in which Judge Pesce explains that Mr. Aranoff's “two children could be considered illegitimate if brought here (to New York/the U.S.) because New York did not recognize your Israeli divorce}.”
21.In his paragraph #6, Mr. Aranoff mentions the tens of thousands of dollars of Social Security which I have proven he receives for his partner Yemima and his children. He does not deny that he is receiving those funds. I challenge Mr. Aranoff to deny that U.S. Social Security is paying tens of thousands of dollars per year in benefits to his partner and children. His partner Yemima is not his lawful wife under New York State U.S. law, and she is, therefore, not entitled to receive Social Security funds.
22. I wish to put on the public record that Mr. Aranoff seems to be falsely claiming that he and his daughter Hadassah reside at 498 East 18th Street, my home. About 6 months ago, I suddenly began receiving mail for Mr. Aranoff and Hadassah. The mail for Hadassah often is labeled on the outside in connection with college. I am attaching a copy of one such envelope. Hadassah has never resided in my Brooklyn home or anywhere in the U.S., to my knowledge. I suspect that this is part of some fraudulent scheme to get U.S. financial assistance for Hadassah's college tuition. I wish to put on this public record that I have nothing to do with this probably illegal deception, which is making use of my address. I fear being implemented in some scheme to defraud the U.S. government.”
I’m happy to report that the IRS sent to me and to Yemima notices that we owe $0.00 for tax years 2011, 2012, and 2013. I never had to pay USA taxes, b”h. I also get full proper amounts of USA social security. These were big fights Susan made for me. I had to go to USA Tax Court etc. I could write a book.
Like you said, according to Halacha all marital properties fully belong to the husband. The few exceptions include any assets the wife owned prior to marriage. Those assets are under the husband's control during the marriage but revert to the wife in case of divorce.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, if a wife is working all her income is immediately the property of her husband. The only exception to this rule is if she told her husband at some point during the marriage that she will own her income and he is no longer obligated to support her. If she made that statement, then income she generated from that point on remains her property.
And, as indicated, Halacha does not support ongoing alimony payments after a marriage other than the one-time Kesuba payment.
These halachic rules are equally applicable whether the wife demanded a Get (and got it) or whether the husband decided to give her a Get (even if she didn't want it.)
Where is this Rema you are referring to and specifically what does the Rema say?
ReplyDeleteWhat I meant was that bringing up dina d'malchusa dina and then saying that you'll discuss it another time isn't fair. It's the central issue around which this revolves in modern Western societies and does play a role in shaping halachic judgements in dinei mamonos.
ReplyDeleteThe Rema you are referencing, as I understand it, is not covering ownership of marital assets, but is rather addressing business transactions and business partnerships.
ReplyDeletei think we should stop teaching masechet gitten and kiddushin in yeshiva.
ReplyDeleteit gives young men the mistaken notion that that is what the (current) halachic practice today is.
in actual fact, there is NO such thing, state law is what decides.
stop giving impressionable students the false idea that that is what happens nowadays in a dicorce.
See Yeshurun Journal's section about the NY Get law where R' Feivel Cohen notes that equal division of assets is theft.
ReplyDelete“One of the areas of great relevance to the contemporary religious Jewish community is what happens to financial assets when a couple divorce.”
ReplyDeleteOur Sages were smart to institute the kethubah. Why? Since the man could divorce his wife at his whim, our Sages wanted to slow him down, if he’s angry at his wife. He’ll have to pay her the kethubah. Today, the feminists want divorce to be at the wife’s whim. Yes, indeed, the feminists want along with easy and quick divorce, the whole of the man’s money and all the rights to the children.
In my case…allow me, OK? Susan and her wealthy parents planned the divorce over many years. They had a problem, how to block me from her parents millions and millions. Answer: concoct that I deserted her. The NYS courts will then take all my money and all my rights to my children.
The feminists have a problem. They cannot take away a man’s right to remarry and have new children --- all legitimate. This may slow down some of the push of angry wives to demand divorces and to demand all the money and all the custody --- they risk, that he’ll get a new wife and have new children. Far less likely for her to get a new husband and have new children.
“Divorce: Division of assets when husband leaves vs wife leaves husband” This is part of what I wrote to the NYS Court of Appeals May 27, 2016:
ReplyDelete2. Please see attached QDRO 10/15/1997. Later QDROs that replaced this one are essentially the same. I call the court's attention to:
“7. Gerald Aranoff has irrevocably elected a Joint and Survivor Annuity, Full Benefit to Survivor with Jemima Aranoff as the second annuitant to receive benefits for life if she survives him.
8. The Plaintiff/Alternate Payee will not look to these proceeds to satisfy any obligation remaining upon the death of Gerald Aranoff. The Plaintiff/Alternate Payee will not unduly withhold consent for the initiation of survivor payments to Jemima.”
3.Rabbinate Sages were smart to institute the kethubah. Why? Since the man could divorce his wife under strict Jewish law at his whim, Rabbinate Sages wanted to slow him down, if he's angry at his wife. If he divorces her out of pique he'll have to pay her the kethubah. Today, the feminists want divorce to be at the wife's whim. Yes, indeed, the feminists want along with easy and quick divorce, the whole of the man's money and all the rights to the children. In my case, Susan and her wealthy parents planned the divorce over many years, unknown to me. They had a problem, how to block me from her parents millions and millions. Answer: concoct that I deserted her. The NYS courts will then take all my money and all my rights to my children.
The feminists have a problem. They cannot take away a man's right to remarry and have new children --- all legitimate. This may slow down some of the push of angry wives to demand divorces and to demand all the money and all the custody --- they risk, that he'll get a new wife and have new children. Far less likely for her to get a new husband and have new children.
4.This is my theme with the NYS Court of Appeals. NYS courts could rule only in money matters. Susan's injecting Yemima in her court papers is a good reason for the NYS Court of Appeals to agree to review the entire matter, going back to July 1991 when Rivka Haut handed me in my home in Brooklyn court papers that her husband prepared. Rivka Haut and Irwin Haut testified against me in court (lies) to convince Judge Rigler and his law clerk Larry Rothbart that I deserted Susan, which I didn't, for Susan deserted me, as we know today. Susan wanted all my money, which she would get if she proves I deserted her.”
I fully agree we should stop teaching masechet gitten and kiddushin in yeshiva. Furthermore both mesechtot require a Get to be given on divorce and those like MiMedinat_HaYam a frequent blogger on Harry Myrles anti Halocho blog hate the fact that women cannot just run off with their new found boyfriends of the week without a Get.
ReplyDeleteAnd while we're at it, obviously Shabbos is out of date. Global economics is 24/7. So obviously mesches Shabbos, Baitza and eruvin should be discarded as well.
And kashrus means restricting one's lifestyle and ability to socialize with whomever one wants so chulin should also be ditched.
MiMedinat_HaYam take your worldviews and publicize them where they belong on YU, the reform and re-constructionist websites because they are frankly sickening.
No, they should continue teaching those mesechtos and put the state law side by side and say that as compelling as it may seem, the Torah will persevere (as the final ruling regarding the Epstein torture gang's end of posul gittin is a living example of....) and not let anyone tell us otherwise. "Ki lo tishochach mipi zaro ". ....
ReplyDeleteRav Menashe Klein zt"l, brought at least in one place, in his "Kuntres Get Meusah b'Arkaos" that dina d'malchusa applies where it benefits the malchus, but in a dispute between 2 individuals, where the Torah already has its guidelines is non applicable, otherwise, he reasons, let's just toss the Shulchan Aruch and just learn the law of the land. ....
ReplyDelete"the fact that women cannot just run off with their new found boyfriends of the week without a Get."
ReplyDeleteI never stated that, and that ignores my statement that masechet gittin and kiddushin have rules for division of assets, that are not followed today, and thus, we should not be giving young men (and women) the mistaken idea that that is what a dissolution of marriage means.
(by the way, no where in gitten or kiddushin does it say that a get should be given on divorce. unless agreed to by both parties, and or authorized by a proper betdin that is agreed to by the parties.)
as for your issues of shmirat Shabbat and global economy, you are showing your disdain for shmirat shabbat, and orthodox Judaism altogether. even normative OO does not advocate that.
(add taharat hamishpacha, korbanot, tfillah in general, etc to your non modern Judaism.)
(by the way, nowhere in gitten or kiddushin does it say that a get should be given on divorce. unless agreed to by both parties, and or authorized by a proper betdin that is agreed to by the parties.)
ReplyDeleteYou really show your ignorance. Don't you? It is a clear mishna and gemoro about a get meuseh that if forced by the goyiim is posul.
You are the one showing disdain for the halocho. But don't believe me. believe what the Bais Yosef paskens about those who wisdh to use secular law as oppposed to halocho in the name of the rashbo.
You are a hypocrite. if the worls has moved on with respect to monetary matters and divorce and halocho doesn't apply then why should it apply in other cases? or is it pick it as it suits you? Well other parts may not suit suit someone else.
I want to thank Dr.Agbazara for his job in my family, this is man who left me and the kids for another woman without any good reasons, i was pain and confuse,till one day when i saw Dr.Agbazara contact, then i contacted him and he help me cast a reunion spell that help my situation with 48hours, since I then the situation has changed, everything is moving well, my husband who left me is now back to his family. reach DR.AGBAZARA TEMPLE via email if you have any problem at:
ReplyDelete( agbazara@gmail.com )
OR whatsapp or call him on +2348104102662.