In view of the foregoing, this court holds that in the circumstances presented here, increasing the amount or the duration of Defendant's post-divorce spousal maintenance obligation pursuant to DRL §236B(6)(o) by reason of his refusal to give Plaintiff a Jewish religious divorce or "Get" would violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. There is no evidence that the Defendant has withheld a Get to extract concessions from Plaintiff in matrimonial litigation or for other wrongful purposes. The religious and social consequences of which Plaintiff complains flow not from any impropriety in Defendant's withholding a "Get", but from religious beliefs to which Plaintiff no less than Defendant subscribes. To apply coercive financial pressure because of the perceived unfairness of Jewish religious divorce doctrines to induce Defendant to perform a religious act would plainly interfere with the free exercise of his (and her) religion and violate the First Amendment. The court accordingly declines Plaintiff's invitation to apply DRL §236B(6)(o) in determining Defendant's maintenance obligation.
======================================================[...]
It was of the view that "the relief [the wife] seeks from this court so obviously runs afoul of the threshold tests of the Free Exercise Clause that the court need never reach the delicate balancing normally required in such cases." Id., at 534. It wrote:
The court is not unsympathetic to [the wife's] desire to have [the husband's] cooperation in the obtaining of a "get". She, too, is sincere in her religious beliefs. Her religion, at least in terms of divorce, does not profess gender equality. But does that mean that she can obtain the aid of this court of equity to alter this doctrine of her faith? ....
Id., at 535. After extended analysis, the court answered:
It may seem "unfair" that [the husband] may ultimately refuse to provide a "get". But the unfairness comes from [the wife's] own sincerely-held religious beliefs. When she entered into the "ketubah" she agreed to be obligated to the laws of Moses and Israel. Those laws apparently include the tenet that if [the husband] does not provide her with a "get" she must remain an "agunah". That was [the wife's] choice and one which can hardly be remedied by this court. This court has no authority — were it willing — to choose for these parties which aspects of their religion may be embraced and which must be rejected. Those who founded this Nation knew too well the tyranny of religious persecution and the need for religious freedom. To engage even in "well-intentioned' resolution of a religious dispute requires the making of a choice which accommodates one view and suppresses another. If that is permitted, it readily follows that less "well-intentioned" choices may be made in the future . . . .
The tenets of [the wife's] religion would be debased by this court's crafting of a short-cut or loophole through the religious doctrines she adheres to; and the dignity and integrity of the court and its processes would be irreparably injured by such misuse...
Id., at 542-543.
It is clear from the legislative history that it was precisely this purported "unfairness" of a Jewish husband's refusal to provide a Get that drove the enactment of the DRL §253 requirement of removal of barriers to remarriage:
....Although the statute is phrased in ostensibly neutral language, its avowed purpose is to curb what has been described as the withholding of Jewish religious divorces, despite the entry of civil divorce judgments, by spouses acting out of vindictiveness or applying economic coercion. See Governor's Memorandum of Approval, McKinney's 1983 Session Laws of New York, pp. 2818, 2819. The statute seeks to provide a remedy for the "tragically unfair" situation presented where a Jewish husband refuses to sign [*6]religious documents needed for a religious divorce. Id.
Though this is the purpose of the statute, the statute makes no express reference to Jewish religious divorces or Jewish religious tribunals. The absence of references to Jewish religious practices was hardly unintentional. The statute represents an obvious encroach-ment by the civil authorities into religious matters, particularly with respect to perceived unfairness in the religious divorce doctrines of one particular religion. In an attempt to skirt some of the difficult constitutional questions raised in the context of the relationship between church and state, the drafters of the statute wrote in neutral language and avoided any express singling out of Jewish practices. However, even approached with linguistic backhand, the contention has been raised that the entire statute is unconstitutional. The existence of constitutional questions was noted by the Governor when the original legislation was presented for signature. However, he was determined to sign the legislation because of the absence of "impelling precedent" and confidence in the courts to resolve the constitutional questions. See Governor's Memorandum of Approval, McKinney's 1983 Session Laws of New York, pp. 2818, 2819.
McKinney's Cons. Laws of New York Annotated, DRL §253, Practice Commentaries (Scheinkman) C253:1 (2016).
Noting the potential constitutional infirmity of DRL §253 in terms directly applicable to Plaintiff's request that maintenance be so calibrated per DRL §236B(6)(o) as to apply financial pressure on Defendant to induce him to provide a Jewish religious divorce, the Hon. Alan D. Scheinkman wrote:
DRL §253 is really designed to induce or compel Jewish spouses, especially men, to "voluntarily" accede to religious divorces or else be precluded from obtaining a civil divorce decree. Viewed as such, it is questionable whether the statute can withstand constitutional challenge.
It cannot be doubted that marriage is a personal relation and the state may fix the rights, duties, and obligations which arise out of the relationship, including the terms on which the relationship may be terminated. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190...(1888). The state may allow civil divorce, even though one spouse object to the decree on the basis of religious conviction and even though a religious divorce cannot be or has not been obtained. See Williams v. Williams, 543 P.2d 1401 (Okla. Sup. Ct. 1976), appeal dismissed, cert. denied ...426 U.S. 901.... Religious practices, even those relating to religious marriage practice, may be regulated, if offensive to overriding public policy. See Reynolds v. United States, 8 Otto 145, 98 U.S. 145...(1878)(criminal prosecution for bigamy).[FN4]
This statute does not purport to prohibit a religious practice on public policy grounds. Instead, it is intended to coerce parties to seek religious relief on pain of being deprived of civil relief. While it may perhaps be permissible for secular courts to compel a party to perform a contractual obligation, though imposed in a religious writing (as allowed by the Avitzur decision), it seems doubtful that a civil statute can compel, by mandating the withholding of relief, a party to a civil action to undertake religious proceedings or submit [*7]to religious authorities and practices. The statute may be susceptible to the conclusion that it interferes with the free practice of religion and transgresses the separation of church and state.
McKinney's Cons. Laws of New York Annotated, DRL §253, Practice Commentaries (Scheinkman) C253:1 (2016) (emphasis added).
In view of the foregoing, this court holds that in the circumstances presented here, increasing the amount or the duration of Defendant's post-divorce spousal maintenance obligation pursuant to DRL §236B(6)(o) by reason of his refusal to give Plaintiff a Jewish religious divorce or "Get" would violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. There is no evidence that the Defendant has withheld a Get to extract concessions from Plaintiff in matrimonial litigation or for other wrongful purposes. The religious and social consequences of which Plaintiff complains flow not from any impropriety in Defendant's withholding a "Get", but from religious beliefs to which Plaintiff no less than Defendant subscribes. To apply coercive financial pressure because of the perceived unfairness of Jewish religious divorce doctrines to induce Defendant to perform a religious act would plainly interfere with the free exercise of his (and her) religion and violate the First Amendment. The court accordingly declines Plaintiff's invitation to apply DRL §236B(6)(o) in determining Defendant's maintenance obligation.
5. Findings
Defendant is a young, well educated man in good health with an earning capacity far in excess of the very meager income reflected on his 2015 tax return. Moreover, evidence of record indicates that his earnings and financial resources exceed the amounts stated on his tax return and net worth statement, and, in addition, that Defendant has willfully failed to comply with his financial disclosure obligations in this case. In view of the foregoing, the court imputes to Defendant gross income in the amount of $75,000.00 per annum. Applying the statutory guideline for post-divorce spousal maintenance to the parties' income as determined hereinabove, spousal maintenance owing from Defendant to Plaintiff would be $9,696.00 per annum (or $808.00 per month, $186.46 per week) for a minium of 2.1 years and a maximum of 4.2 years.
In accordance with the post-divorce maintenance guidelines, the court fixes Defendant's maintenance obligation at $9,696.00 per annum ($808.00 per month, $186.46 per week), taxable to Plaintiff and tax-deductible by Defendant, for a period of four (4) years, and finds that this guideline obligation is neither unjust nor inappropriate in light of the factors set forth in DRL §236B(6)(e)(1).
Child Support
At this time, Plaintiff is the custodial parent. Unless and until Family Court alters her status as the custodial parent, Defendant's child support obligation is $843.83 per month (or $194.73 per week), calculated as follows: [...]
The foregoing constitutes the decision of the court. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to submit revised Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and a revised Judgment of Divorce, consistent with this Decision, for settlement on ten (10) days notice to Defendant.
Dated: January 13, 2017
Nice! Thank you for posting.
ReplyDeleteThe opinion seems to say that if someone holds out just for cash then the law would be ok. Not sure how that makes sense in light of the courts reasoning. If Jewish law says that's ok then it would still seem like the law would be a problem.
ReplyDeleteWhat about these same BD have their mafia goons import Guns for Hire, is that constitutional? Threatning one to kill to extract a Get, is that Kosher within the Orthodox religion? Or murdering someone to matir eishes ish lealma, is that in accordance of the Shulchan Aruch?There is an ehrental and his father in law's BD in the mix, the Goldberg, the local goon contact leibowitch, vechol sharei minei yerokos we yet have to hear. Why is it so quiet about this scandal of Biblical proportions. Hen beDinei demalchusa vehen beDinei Toroseinu haKdosha is not permissible to be *Rodef* and spilling blood. This is all part n parcel of the mix. Rabosay, es brent a fayer, vesefer Torah shebaHeichal is at risk, come to the rescue before ALL is lost. Sound your voices, Mi laH' elay!
ReplyDeleteThe battle is on. We didn't start it, and it is not incumbent upon us to finish it, either. But we gotta do what we gotta do. Count me in, commander. I have a secret project in the works, so, Bli Eyen Hara, my hands are not idle.
ReplyDeleteI read the decision Esther Masri v. Joseph Masrti
ReplyDeleteBravo bravo
“a law must have both a secular purpose and a secular effect. That is, a law must not have a sectarian purpose; it must not be based upon a disagreement with a religious tenet or practice and must not be aimed at impeding religion.”
Susan's www.agunahinternational.com/ states:
“To counsel women whose husbands use the Get as a weapon to extort financial gain or custodial rights, or to exact revenge during the divorce process.”
The truth is that the feminist manipluate the NYS courts and the NYS get law to weaponize to extort financial gain, custodial rights, and to exact revenge during the divorce process.
!!זה היום עשה ה' נגילה ונשמחה בו
ReplyDeleteBravo Judge Catherine M. Bartlett:
ReplyDelete“It is clear from the legislative history that it was precisely this purported "unfairness" of a Jewish husband's refusal to provide a Get that drove the enactment of the DRL §253 requirement of removal of barriers to remarriage:
....Although the statute is phrased in ostensibly neutral language, its avowed purpose is to curb what has been described as the withholding of Jewish religious divorces, despite the entry of civil divorce judgments, by spouses acting out of vindictiveness or applying economic coercion.”
If the BD orders a man to give a get and he refuses, what do you expect them to do? A man who refuses to listen to the BD to give a Get is a debasing himself and denying the Torah. In such a situation it is the duty of the BD to do whatever is possible to save the man's soul and the woman's life!
ReplyDeleteSee the Rambam Hilkhot Gerushin 2:20: "When a man whom the law requires to be compelled to divorce his wife does not desire to divorce her, the court should have him beaten until he consents, at which time they should have a get written. The get is acceptable. This applies at all times and in all places.
Similarly, if gentiles beat him while telling him: "Do what the Jews are telling you to do," and the Jews have the gentiles apply pressure on him until [he consents] to divorce his wife, the divorce is acceptable. If, however, the gentiles compel him to write [a get] on their own initiative, the get is [merely] unacceptable.The rationale is that the law requires him to give a divorce.
Why is this get not void? For he is being compelled - either by Jews or by gentiles - [to divorce] against his will [and a get must be given voluntarily].
Because the concept of being compelled against one's will applies only when speaking about a person who is being compelled and forced to do something that the Torah does not obligate him to do - e.g., a person who was beaten until he consented to a sale,54 or to give a present. If, however, a person's evil inclination presses him to negate [the observance of] a mitzvah or to commit a transgression, and he was beaten until he performed the action he was obligated to perform, or he dissociated himself from the forbidden action, he is not considered to have been forced against his will. On the contrary, it is he himself who is forcing [his own conduct to become debased].55
With regard to this person who [outwardly] refuses to divorce [his wife] - he wants to be part of the Jewish people, and he wants to perform all the mitzvot and eschew all the transgressions; it is only his evil inclination that presses him. Therefore, when he is beaten until his [evil] inclination has been weakened, and he consents [to the divorce], he is considered to have performed the divorce willfully.
[Different laws apply when] the law does not require him to divorce his wife, and a Jewish court or simple people compel him to divorce her. This get is deemed unacceptable. Since, however, it was Jews who compelled him, he [is advised] to complete the divorce [in a proper manner]. If, by contrast, gentiles compel him to divorce when it was not required, the divorce is void. Even though he tells the gentiles that he consented and tells the Jews to write and sign [a get], since the law does not require him to divorce, and he was compelled to do so by gentiles, the get is void."
"it is the duty of the BD to do whatever is possible to save the man's soul and the woman's life!".
ReplyDeleteA BD has to be reputable, and it must have Dayonim mehugonim that abide by the Shulchan Aruch, disclose their reasoning's for what they Pasken. More so when we are dealing with Iskei veinyonei Ishus Betiv Gittin veKidushin that calls for top experts Betiv Gittin veKidushin, Gmirei usvirei, anshei emes vesonei betza that are known to be such. Not kol tzarua vekol zov with moblie boiler room back door operations aka Kangaroo self declared rabiners that are ready to procure gittei psulim for ca$h, and even to kill.
We just finished a very painful saga of rabiners having a thousand or so members, amongst them peepers, swindlers, liars, Prodders, serving Ksav Siruvim to *nonexistent husbands*, shofchei domim vechol shaar aveiros hachamuros shebaTorah. They do it so brazen that they don't even blink an eye, they deny it in your face one day to the right and the next day to the left and when I said yes, I meant no and when I said no, I never even meant it, as if the whole thing is a joke. They even party with them and when all the Worldly Poskim are up in arms Shomu Shamayim, there is no one to talk to. Those money hungry self declared dayonim took 65K a pop and let the women go *FREE* entering the market just by declaring so, kosher kosher, kosher top, kosher lefel, thereby bringing mamzerimlech into this world. They have many rishei yeshivos chachomim leheira that are matir assurim afilu of the shnei ptilot bener echod kind RL, for the right price. If the nonexistent husband swindle didn't fly, they go on to Plan B and declare a mekach taus with pilpulim shel dofi. If mekach tuches didn't fly they recently imported Plan C shoot to kill with a kisui hadam beshem umalchus. So just because someone calls himself a BD, he could be a dangerous criminal, and BH they were stung and now ended up sitting right where they belong, in the *Chad Gadya*. We still have some Bnei Odom yoshvei choshech roaming around freely by offering their singing talent services to the feds veochlei bei kurtze, hu yelech lemisa, ve'ani ekones lechayim tovim, vesholom olay nafshi.
These rabiners need to be beaten the crap out of them with batons of R' A Eiger veafilu beShabbos, both by Jews and Gentiles alike, until he screams 'ich vel shoyn zayn gut'. Deep down, he truly wants to be a good rabiner, ela has'eor shebeIsa is meakev. More so, when there is matan $choro betzida. If not for the *.totpi.com* sting operation, this M vs. M guy could have been somewhere in Pensylvania with a bullet in his head, or somewhere in Na na na Oman, or in horei choshech with no ruach chayim RL. These goons are capable of anything, vechoshud al shfichus domim. At the end of the day, dina demalchusse dina catches up with them, veHoElokim yevakesh et haNirdaf, and let them sing in sing sing, lock them all up and throw away the key!
These are not Agunos, these are the scum of the earth crying wolf and declaring open season. It is his prerogative to pick out a reputable BD and do things the way we have been doing for over three thousand years, with Dayonim mehugonim anshei Emes vesonei botza and we then won't see so many tzarot hamischadshim bechol yom. I hope and pray that all these scoundrels should be caught and put away for good. Vaya'anu kol ho'om yachdov Amen. Vesholom al Yisroel.
Someone needs to appeal this or similar decisions by New York's lower courts regarding the constitutionality of New York's Get law to both New York's High Court as well as to the Federal courts.
ReplyDeleteIt is ripe to be overturned as it is blatantly unconstitutional.
In the vast majority of cases, beis din does NOT order him to give a Get. As halacha does not mandate that he give his wife a Get in the event he does not wish to.
ReplyDeleteI sent today to the NYS Court of Appeals Susan v. Gerald 2016—1135
ReplyDelete“4. I didn't understand Susan's manipulations in NYS courts right from the beginning June 1991. One week before my departure, Susan first asked me for a divorce. When I pleaded with Susan for reconciliation on the phone from Israel, Susan told me that if I agree to a NYS civil divorce “that's the ticket”---we can reconcile. I fought the civil divorce with my lawyer. My case is similar to Ester v. Joseph. I successfully fought the civil divorce which Susan sought 1991 -2000. My court letter 1/15/2017 quotes Judge Rigler Order 3/29/2000 “… Mr. Aranoff's motion papers do serve one useful purpose. They indicate a desire to settle this old matrimonial action. This goal can be accomplished, in part, by the institution of a divorce action by Ms. Aranoff… nearly one decade after this action for separation commenced.”
If she requests a divorce, on the grounds that the husband disgusts her (even without proof) that is grounds enough for the BD to order him to give a Get. And if he refuses, he should be punished (in every possible way) until his evil inclination is diminished and he gives the get. It is all for HIS OWN good. See the Rambam's perush to the mishna gittin 9th perek mishna 8.
ReplyDelete1st of all, a person should always make sure to live in a city with a BD that he can rely on. If he does not, then that is his fault. 2nd even if the BD is not hagun, and they issue a decree that he divorce his wife. Then he should do so, according to the Rambam I quoted. Bottomline, if the woman does not want to be with him, and the BD with jurisdiction sides with her, then he has to divorce her, otherwise he is a rasha. There is no conceivable reason why a man should "weaponize" his get. That is a misuse and distortion of the Torah that stems solely from his evil inclination.
ReplyDeleteyou are assuming that the Rambam is the accepted halacha? Or is it convenient because it agrees with your preconceived views?
ReplyDeleteFirstly, we don't believe her because, *Shema nosno eineha beachar* as Tamar admitted in her memoirs, She can do better! Besides, you first must have a legitimate reason to give a Psak, and not the kind we have seen as for nonexistent husbands. These are like the so called Kohanim that bought title for monie$. You cannot apply undue pressure, lest it becomes a get MeUsse, chad vecholok. All those involved in Get fabrications either already sit in prison or deserve to be. Kulom menoafim verodfei shalmonim, as R' C. Kanievsky said about the Feminist rabbis. Oich mir a Rabbi. How exactly was the Get Pizza pie divided for the collaborators, Huh?
ReplyDeleteUmi nidche mipnei mi. These money hungry drunk with power Hungry ambitions need not apply. They were all cursed out by the Dayonim mehugonim Elyon of the World! All the erliche Yoshvei al HaModin dcreed them as SHARYA and need harchaka kimtachvei keshes. Their babble is worthless, their psokim and alilas dam are full of garbage and lies, just by declaring someone insane is an outrage, it is done in Russia of all places. Their time has come and nisgale klonam leinei kol haolam kulo. Hakol shkarim vekol kulam shkarim, rabiners sheovar aleihem haklach, veziknei mamrei SHARYA.
ReplyDeleteIncorrect. The Shulchan Aruch paskens against that Rambam and rules that is halachicly insufficient reason to mandate he give her a Get.
ReplyDeleteGood morning. Many trolls before you have tried to push this feminist drivel as Torah miSinai. Who has time to keep educating amei haaretz?
ReplyDeleteProgressive sounds like Susan:
ReplyDelete“If she requests a divorce, on the grounds that the husband disgusts her (even without proof) that is grounds enough for the BD to order him to give a Get. And if he refuses, he should be punished (in every possible way) until his evil inclination is diminished and he gives the get. It is all for HIS OWN good. See the Rambam's perush to the mishna gittin 9th perek mishna 8.”
Gittin 9th perek Mishnah 8:
If a letter of divorce were written in Hebrew and its witnesses in Greek, or in Greek י and its witnesses in Hebrew, or if one witness were a Hebrew and another witness a Greek: or if the scribe subscribed together with one witness, it is legal. 'So-and-so is a witness,' it is valid. ('The son of so-and-so is a witness,' it is licit. ' So-and-so the son of so-and-so) but one did not write 'He is a witness , it is valid; and thus did the decent-minded people in Jerusalem do. If one wrote his surname and her surname, it is legal. A letter of divorce under duress is licit if in Israel, but invalid if in a non-Jewish court; but if the non-Jewish court persecute him and say to him, 'Do whatsoever the Jewish Court bids thee,' then it is legal.
רמב"ם על משנה מסכת גיטין פרק ט משנה ח
מעושה, שנלקח בכפייה והכרח, כלומר שכפו את הבעל לגרש. אם היו בית דין של ישראל הם הכופין הרי זה גט כשר. ואם שופט הגוים כפה אותו לגרש הרי הגט פסול על כל פנים, אלא שאם הייתה כפייתו כפי מה שמחייבים דיני ישראל, כגון שתבעה האישה את הגרושין, או שהיה חייב לגרשה מן הדין, הרי אותו הגט פוסל מן הכהונה ואף על פי שהוא פסול. וכן אם כפאוהו בית דין של ישראל על הגט שלא כדין הרי אותו הגט פסול ופוסל מן הכהונה. ואם כפאוהו הגויים שישמע לישראל, וצווהו בית דין של ישראל לכתבו הרי זה כשר.
The Rambam does not support divorce under duress---except where the bet din ordered the man to divorce his wife.
most ordinary people would cite the sources that agree with their preconceived views - that is human nature.
ReplyDeletePlease provide the source in the shulchan aruch. Note that the Rambam says even if the BD errs halachically - the man should give the Get. Also, don't forget that the evil inclination is the ONLY thing that can force any self-respecting man to withold a Get from a woman who despises him.
ReplyDeleteThe Rambam is not a feminist.
ReplyDeleteThe BD, according to the Rambam you quoted, is obligated to order the man to give a Get if she demands it.
ReplyDelete"אלא שאם הייתה כפייתו כפי מה שמחייבים דיני ישראל, כגון שתבעה האישה את הגרושין"
As per the full decision, "The Second Department's ruling in Schwartz (and in Pinto, to the extent that it is truly founded on Schwartz) is unexceptionable. The withholding of a Get to extort financial concessions from one's spouse constitutes simony, i.e., an exchange of supernatural things for temporal advantage. When the husband himself so unambiguously subordinates his religion to purely secular ends, he may properly be said to have forfeited the protective mantle of the First Amendment, and the court may, quite rightfully and without constitutional hindrance, impose the secular remedies authorized by the Domestic Relations Law."
ReplyDeleteIs he the accepted halacha?
ReplyDeleteThis is an Orange county (?monroe?) case, where courts are not as messed up as NYC courts are, regarding cases matters such as this.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the wife's attorney has a reputation of being very aggressive, and will probably appeal (and knowing the "agunah" lobby, they will even finance the appeal, besides the usual friend of court briefs, etc.). That, combined with the pro se status of the husband, means this will probably overturned on appeal. The appeal will be to an albany appellate division.
The only way to tell, is if the appellate division gives the husband an attorney (on grounds of public interest in the case, public relevance, etc.) Otherwise, the "fix" is in, on this case.
Check Shulchan Aruch EH 77:2. He doesn't have to divorce her even if she claims he disgusts her.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the Shulchan Aruch says that if beis din erroneously tells him he must give her a divorce when halacha doesn't require it, then the divorce is a Get Me'usa, an invalid Get that if she uses to remarry then her subsequent children are mamzeirim.
Shulchan Aruch rules against the Rambam.
ReplyDeleteProgressive (Susan or a Susan supporter) says:
ReplyDelete“The BD, according to the Rambam you quoted, is obligated to order the man to give a Get if she demands it. אלא שאם הייתה כפייתו כפי מה שמחייבים דיני ישראל, כגון שתבעה האישה את הגרושין”
No. Say, a cohain married a divorcee. The BD then still needs the woman to complain to the BD that she wants a divorce and he refuses. A BD orders a recalcitrant husband to divorce his wife only in rare cases. This is my letter to the NYS Court of Appeals Susan v Gerald 2016-1135 12/30/2016:
3. I quote from the Bible: ”These are the things you are to do: Speak the truth to one another, render true and perfect justice in your gates. And do not contrive evil against one another, and do not love perjury, because all those are things that I hate---declares the Lord.” (Zechariah 8:16-17).
Zechariah uses truth/true twice in verse 16. According to Rashi perfect justice is compromise. Rashi says “And do not contrive evil against one another” refers to baseless hatred. Lying shows that the hatred is baseless.
The law is plain that it is highly immoral for a wife to seek divorce for no good reason. Some wives develop a baseless hatred for their husbands. Then they make up lies in court about their husbands to justify their baseless hatred. Zechariah warns: “and do not love perjury.”
4. I quote
Mishnah Gittin 9:10:
The School of Shammai say, A man may not divorce his wife unless he has found in her aught improper [lewdness, unchastity], as it is said, [“A man takes a wife and possesses her. She fails to please him because he finds something obnoxious about her, and he writes her a bill of divorcement, hands it to her, and sends her away from his house;” (Deuteronomy 24:1)] because he hath found some unseemly thing in her. But the School of Hillel say, [They read either unchastity or reprehensibility] Even if she spoiled a dish for him [to annoy him], as it is said, “because he finds something obnoxious about her.” R. Akiba says [In amplification of the view of Bet Hillel (if he discovered in her any unseemly matter) before she regains favor in his eyes and he condones her misconduct---even if he found another more beautiful than her---in which case it would ordinarily be highly immoral to divorce his wife for a prettier woman, therefore it is stressed that this is no deterrent to the divorce of the unfaithful wife.] [he may divorce her] even if he finds another woman more beautiful than she is, as it says, it cometh to pass, “She fails to please him.”
The key passage from the above court decision, finding application of New York's Get law to be unconstitutional, is:
ReplyDeleteIn view of the foregoing, this court holds that in the circumstances presented here, increasing the amount or the duration of Defendant's post-divorce spousal maintenance obligation pursuant to DRL §236B(6)(o) by reason of his refusal to give Plaintiff a Jewish religious divorce or "Get" would violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. There is no evidence that the Defendant has withheld a Get to extract concessions from Plaintiff in matrimonial litigation or for other wrongful purposes. The religious and social consequences of which Plaintiff complains flow not from any impropriety in Defendant's withholding a "Get", but from religious beliefs to which Plaintiff no less than Defendant subscribes. To apply coercive financial pressure because of the perceived unfairness of Jewish religious divorce doctrines to induce Defendant to perform a religious act would plainly interfere with the free exercise of his (and her) religion and violate the First Amendment. The court accordingly declines Plaintiff's invitation to apply DRL §236B(6)(o) in determining Defendant's maintenance obligation.
Talking about rabiners with WMD's they are of the 'lo motzo yodov veraglov beBeis haMidrash' kind. Any yeshiva bochur knows that *Mi she'eino boki betiv Gittin vsKidushin al yehe esek imohen* and it is a Mishne mefureshes that they had no clue, and what they paskened does not hold at all. These so called rishei yeshivos, failed miserably in procuring a Get, they then invented a Mekach taus by taking a false certificate of a Psychiatrist that never even spoke to the subject of interest. Little did they know that it is a Mishne mefureshes that when she claims Mekach taus, she must immediately depart, and if she flinched, she is in need of a *Get*. RSK tried to fix it by telling her to claim she was packing for the next three months. Three months my foot. No such thing! It must be then and there immediately, if not, it's over and needs a Get. if they didn't know this then it's not even a BD of hedyotos, never mind *yodin Betiv*. Even if he claims he is doing this for over sixty years behind him, it is meaningless. Indeed, all the Poskei Olam told them same but all they did is blaming each other, the RSK's on RNG, vechozer vechalilo whilt the paramours are living in sin.
ReplyDeleteIn such case even the Rambam agrees that it ain't over, you Need a get! Kamo tzodku divrei chachomim veAl yehei esek imohem!!! But they neither admit nor tell them to depart and that is a great Chutzpah, a *Beis Din Chotzuf* turned zaken mamre. To such you want to apply a Mitzva lishmoa divrei chachomim even when they are wrong, calling it a Psak, calling the husband a rasha??? These are chachomim leheira.
Going back some years we read about a mother pouring acid on her child to remove the devil from within the child. That is VooDooism, aka megaleh ponim baTorah shelo kehalacha. How can they allow a woman to have two husbands at the same time? Huh? Since Epstein invented the ElectricProd, waterboarding, karate chops, makos retzach so that he will know, for 65K a pop it has been a booming business. Now he is rotting in jail for a change and Epstein will know!!! and the so called Agunos are megadel mamzerim.
Bottom line, if it is not a reputable BD, einom mehugonim, eino yodea beTiv Gittin, rodfei shalmoinim vekoshrei kshorim, kidnappers, zift and reshaim, you must rodef them ad chormo, have them Feds olecho plishtim, it is our holy duty to protest more ad sheyivoda misof haolam ad sofo who they are. This so called ehrental's out-law BD, is also involved in the iskei shofchei domim tartei mashma business with the israeli Goldberg kill for hire. These are marbim shofchei domim beYisroel aka Weapons of Mass Destruction BD's. Uviarto horo miKirbecho, velo yezidun od!!!
I hope this helps
If it is not a reputable BD then the man shold find a reputable BD to eall with the case? (BTW: Rabbiner not Rabbiners)
ReplyDeleteIts a halakhic dispute over a number of possible Torah prohibitions, where the Rambam is stringent - so the halacha is with the Rambam.
ReplyDeleteSo you've got a dispute over a number of possible Torah prohibitions! The Rambam is stringent - so the halacha is with the Rambam.
ReplyDeleteTrue. But the halacha follows the Rambam even for those who pasken like the Shulchan Aruch.
ReplyDeleteare you saying this because you know or because you think it must be true?
ReplyDeleteHuh? You're rewriting the halacha for the 21st century to be different than the halacha Klal Yisroel paskened with for the last hundreds of years?
ReplyDeleteWhat else are you making up as you go along?
ReplyDeleteI know it says that, but it's a clear misstatement of Halacha.
ReplyDeleteI am talking about the halacha going back at least to the time of the Rambam in the 12th century. Or are you accusing the Rambam of making things up or being "progessive"?
ReplyDeleteYes. I know that we must go with the stringent opinion or Torah prohibitions - if there is a doubt.
ReplyDeleteMr Yossi M did offer an alternative BD, but she declined. BTW FYI Oso ve'es bno is plural, you therefore suffix with an *s*. You have left the important parts and Pirchas unanswered. I am quoting the Top Gunners of the world hayoshvim al HaModin that also know a thing or two.
ReplyDeleteThis second Sting Operation is highly Volatile and Highly Explosive, you haven't yet heard the tip of the iceberg. The Titanic is eclipsed next to this Scandal, and will take many victims along with it to the bottom of the ocean. You ain't heard nothi'n yet. The Chilul HaShem is tremendous and this saga will put an end to this Bloody Gittin meussei bekoach hazroa uba'alei egrofin. If the Epstein Sting didn't put them out of business, this one will and for good! Mi bikesh zos miyedchem remos chatzeiroy.
Vayokom melech chodosh asher lo yoda es Yosef, veyitka beshofar godol ubechatzatzotzros (Trump Triumph) venischadshu gzeiroisov, he will put all this Feminism garbage rhetoric down the toilet where it belongs and will remove all the Sedoimi signs of LGBTQ and replace it with a new world order. Who said they are born more equal?
I didn't ask what the Rambam said
ReplyDeleteIWhat is the halacha?
1) If a woman goes to a valid BD and requests for a divorce on the grounds of "mius", her words are enough grounds for the BD to order the husband to give a Get.
ReplyDelete2) Once the man has been ordered to give the Get, he has to obey or face whatever pressure the valid BD seems necessary to force him to give it. Such a Get (meuseh) is valid.
3) IF an invalid BD or thugs without an order from a valid BD force him to give a Get. The Get is invalid. He must however afterwards give a valid Get to avoid the potential michsholim that may result otherwise.
not so
ReplyDeleteThe Judge isn't concerned with Halacha. There is no discussion here regarding the validity of a forced get. The question is only if government can compel one to perform a religious act. In the Judge's view the First Amendment does not protect what she refers to as 'simony' and the government can do what it wants in this case.
ReplyDelete“Decided on January 13, 2017 Supreme Court, Orange County Esther R. Masri, Plaintiff, against Joseph Habib Masri, Defendant. 1557/2016 Catherine M. Bartlett, J.A trial in this contested matrimonial action was conducted on September 28, 2016 on the issues of (1) grounds for divorce, (2) spousal maintenance, and (3) child support.”
ReplyDeleteI have an issue of grounds for divorce with Susan. I successfully fought off Susan’s efforts until 9/10/2013, the Judge Prus Judgment of Divorce which I’m trying to vacate. Judge Rigler Order 3/29/2000 “… Mr. Aranoff's motion papers do serve one useful purpose. They indicate a desire to settle this old matrimonial action. This goal can be accomplished, in part, by the institution of a divorce action by Ms. Aranoff… nearly one decade after this action for separation commenced.”
See, both halacha and NYS civil law don’t like forced divorces. http://www.jdbar.com/Statutes/DRL-170/drl-170.html
“An action for divorce may be maintained by a husband or wife to procure a judgment divorcing the parties and dissolving the marriage on any of the following grounds: (1) The cruel and inhuman treatment of the plaintiff… (2) The abandonment of the plaintiff… (3) The confinement of the defendant in prison… (4) The commission of an act of adultery…(5) The husband and wife have lived apart pursuant to a decree or judgment of separation… (6) to a written agreement of separation…(7) The relationship between husband and wife has broken down irretrievably…”
Judge Freda Wolfson sentenced Mendel Epstein to 10-years jail, stating, Pacer:
“I do find that the criminal conduct for which Epstein was convicted was heinous, regardless whether the act was committed in a religious context. More importantly, Epstein engaged in kidnappings, for the purposes of forced gittin, years before he was arrested; this was hardly a one-time, aberrational act on Epstein's part.”
Both halacha and NYS civil law abhor criminal conduct. I wrote to the NYS Court of Appeals 1/22/2017: I participated in NYS court proceedings Susan initiated in 1991 in good faith with honesty, with never a falsehood and with never a wicked or criminal intention or act all these decades. I apply to Susan from the Bible (Proverbs 3:29--30): “Do not devise harm against your fellow Who lives trustfully with you. Do not quarrel with a man for no cause, When he has done you no harm.” Susan intended harm to me, but the result was good. I'm here in Israel with a new wife and God blessed us with 3 daughters. I apply to myself the saintly Joseph speaking in the Bible (Genesis 50:20): “Besides, although you intended me harm, God intended it for good, so as to bring about the present result---the survival of many people.”
What I stated is the halacha for the machmirim. For the meqilim well, as a rule, will do whatever they can get away with.
ReplyDelete“Decided on January 13, 2017 Supreme Court, Orange County Esther R. Masri, Plaintiff, against Joseph Habib Masri, Defendant. 1557/2016 Catherine M. Bartlett, J.A trial in this contested matrimonial action was conducted on September 28, 2016 on the issues of (1) grounds for divorce, (2) spousal maintenance, and (3) child support.”
ReplyDeleteWe should focus on grounds for divorce. Both Halacha and NYS law don’t like forced divorces. See: http://www.jdbar.com/Statutes/DRL-170/drl-170.html.
“An action for divorce may be maintained by a husband or wife to procure a judgment divorcing the parties and dissolving the marriage on any of the following grounds: (1) The cruel and inhuman treatment of the plaintiff… (2) The abandonment of the plaintiff… (3) The confinement of the defendant in prison… (4) The commission of an act of adultery…(5) The husband and wife have lived apart pursuant to a decree or judgment of separation… (6)... to a written agreement of separation…(7) The relationship between husband and wife has broken down irretrievably…”
Both halacha and NYS law abhor criminal conduct.
Judge Freda Wolfson sentenced Mendel Epstein to 10-years jail, stating, Pacer:
“I do find that the criminal conduct for which Epstein was convicted was heinous, regardless whether the act was committed in a religious context. More importantly, Epstein engaged in kidnappings, for the purposes of forced gittin, years before he was arrested; this was hardly a one-time, aberrational act on Epstein's part.”
Our focus should be grounds for divorce. Wow Joseph H. Masri succeeded in vacating a judgment of divorce in Ester v Joseph !! “The parties are both Orthodox Jews. They married on August 7, 2002, separated in July 2007 and have lived separate and apart since that time. A prior Judgment of Divorce, granted to Plaintiff in New York County in 2009, was vacated on Defendant's application on February 2, 2011.” Maybe I’ll succeed in vacating Judge Prus’ judgement of divorce 9/10/2013 Susan v Gerald.