“Rav Yakov Kaminetsky - seeing spouse as having imperfections sign marriage is not working” ולכן יכול לגרשה Awful. “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; she leaves his household and becomes the wife of another man” (Deuteronomy 24:1-2). Does Rav Yakov Kaminetsky support the K-G heter and Tamar is free etc?
So therefore one might also conclude that if someone perceives an imperfection in their spouse it indicates that the suggested utopian ideal of a "marriage" never existed. One might further conclude that since when a marriage take place it is reasonably anticipated that connubial bliss will ensue, the failure to realize this goal demonstrates that no "real marriage" ever existed.
As B follows A, one reaches the logical conclusion that since one is "mekadaish" surely with the intent of consummating a "real" marriage and further since a "real" marriage is one where no spouse recognizes any fault whatsoever in the other, in the event that one spouse perceives that their union is less than idyllic, it is apparent that the original "kedushin" was in error and thus invalid. Obviously no "get" would be necessary under those circumstances, and each party would be free to pursue their dream of paradisal wedlock.
brilliant except this attempt to explain beis hillel has absolutely nothing to do with normative halacha we don't posken on the basis of drash or chasidic stories
So you consider the "No Fault Divorce" laws on the books in all 50 U.S. states that allows any spouse to divorce on a whim, with or without cause, to be misogynist?
The "No Fault Divorce" works for both spouses so it is not misogynist. Torah law gives only man the right of divorce. If he could only divorce in cases of adultery you could argue it is not misogynist. Applying the right to burnt food is, for the outside observer, misogynist. The believer will say it is the inscrutable ratzon Hashem.
Yehoshua says “Do you know what "misogynist" means? In U.S. law, either party can initiate the divorce. By Torah law, only the man can.” No. In NYS a wife that seeks a NYS civil divorce over the objections of her husband has to prove any one of the 7 items in DRL 170:
DRL 170 Action for divorce
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 by the defendant such that the conduct of the defendant so endangers the physical or mental well being of the plaintiff as renders it unsafe or improper for the plaintiff to cohabit with the defendant.
(2) The abandonment of the plaintiff by the defendant for a period of one or more years.
(3) The confinement of the defendant in prison for a period of three or more consecutive years after the marriage of plaintiff and defendant.
(4) The commission of an act of adultery…
(5) The husband and wife have lived apart pursuant to a decree or judgment of separation for a period of one or more years after the granting of such decree or judgment, and satisfactory proof has been submitted by the plaintiff that he or she has substantially performed all the terms and conditions of such decree or judgment.
(6) The husband and wife have lived separate and apart pursuant to a written agreement of separation… (7) The relationship between husband and wife has broken down irretrievably for a period of at least six months, provided that one party has so stated under oath. No judgment of divorce shall be granted under this subdivision unless and until the economic issues of equitable distribution of marital property, the payment or waiver of spousal support, the payment of child support, the payment of counsel and experts' fees and expenses as well as the custody and visitation with the infant children of the marriage have been resolved by the parties, or determined by the court and incorporated into the judgment of divorce.”
Please please try to read and understand before you write something. It would help avoid senseless exchanges. If you pay attention, you will see that I did not say anything about the Torah being misogynist. What I did say was that your raising the issue of no-fault divorce in the U.S. has absolutely nothing to do with the comment of "Avraham1," as he was discussing a system where only a man can initiate divorce.
Yehoshua, dear, please read the entirety of the exchange in context. The "misogynist" point was raised by Avraham. When I asked for his clarification on that point he said it is because a man can divorce his wife for trivial reasons. I then simply pointed out that secular law also allows a wife to divorce her husband for trivial reasons, so his stated reason for misogyny isn't unique to Judaism.
Avraham didn't say the Torah is misogynist due to only a man possessing the power to issue a divorce. He gave the aforementioned reason, which is what I addressed.
So, in a nutshell, you believe the Torah is misogynist.
Regarding the burnt food, an American shiksa can divorce her husband for the reason of his having burnt her dinner when he cooked it for her. You're conflating trivial reasons with one-sided initiating divorce. But your point is now understood nevertheless.
Maybe you really don't know what "misogynist" means! FYI, it means "characterized by hatred or dislike of women." So Avraham's suggestion that allowing a man, and only a man, the right to exercise no-fault divorce is plausible. By contrast, your "counter" that this would render a law allowing either spouse, man or woman, the right to exercise a no-fault divorce as misogynist makes absolutely no sense. If it gives the same right to both men and women it cannot be defined as "characterized by hatred of or animus to women."
Avraham's original comment wasn't that one-way no fault divorce is misogynist. In fact, Avraham made no mention of no fault divorce until I entered that point into the discussion. Initially Avraham's point about misogyny was only that the mere fact a husband can halachicly divorce his wife on a whim over a trivial matter made Halacha misogynist. I essentially retorted that his stated reason is similar to what you'll find in all 50 U.S. States. It was only after that point in the discussion that the accusation of misogyny was laid at the feet of the halachic right to divorce altogether is only held by the husband.
You still don't seem to be understanding the simple point that a law that treats the husband and wife equally cannot be called misogynist, but I am giving up.
Truism?
ReplyDeleteThis passage transforms a passage always understood as being a tad misogynous into a demand for impossible levels of spousal attachment.
ReplyDelete“Rav Yakov Kaminetsky - seeing spouse as having imperfections sign marriage is not working”
ReplyDeleteולכן יכול לגרשה
Awful.
“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; she leaves his household and becomes the wife of another man” (Deuteronomy 24:1-2).
Does Rav Yakov Kaminetsky support the K-G heter and Tamar is free etc?
He is not alive to comment
ReplyDeleteSo therefore one might also conclude that if someone perceives an imperfection in their spouse it indicates that the suggested utopian ideal of a "marriage" never existed. One might further conclude that since when a marriage take place it is reasonably anticipated that connubial bliss will ensue, the failure to realize this goal demonstrates that no "real marriage" ever existed.
ReplyDeleteAs B follows A, one reaches the logical conclusion that since one is "mekadaish" surely with the intent of consummating a "real" marriage and further since a "real" marriage is one where no spouse recognizes any fault whatsoever in the other, in the event that one spouse perceives that their union is less than idyllic, it is apparent that the original "kedushin" was in error and thus invalid. Obviously no "get" would be necessary under those circumstances, and each party would be free to pursue their dream of paradisal wedlock.
Aha.
What passage do you understand to be a tad so-called "misogynous"?
ReplyDeletebrilliant except this attempt to explain beis hillel has absolutely nothing to do with normative halacha
ReplyDeletewe don't posken on the basis of drash or chasidic stories
Saying that a man can divorce his wife for trivial reasons
ReplyDeleteSo you consider the "No Fault Divorce" laws on the books in all 50 U.S. states that allows any spouse to divorce on a whim, with or without cause, to be misogynist?
ReplyDeleteThe "No Fault Divorce" works for both spouses so it is not misogynist. Torah law gives only man the right of divorce. If he could only divorce in cases of adultery you could argue it is not misogynist. Applying the right to burnt food is, for the outside observer, misogynist. The believer will say it is the inscrutable ratzon Hashem.
ReplyDeleteDo you know what "misogynist" means? In U.S. law, either party can initiate the divorce. By Torah law, only the man can.
ReplyDeleteYehoshua says “Do you know what "misogynist" means? In U.S. law, either party can initiate the divorce. By Torah law, only the man can.”
ReplyDeleteNo. In NYS a wife that seeks a NYS civil divorce over the objections of her husband has to prove any one of the 7 items in DRL 170:
DRL 170
Action for divorce
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 by the defendant such that the conduct of the defendant so endangers the physical or mental well being of the plaintiff as renders it unsafe or improper for the plaintiff to cohabit with the defendant.
(2) The abandonment of the plaintiff by the defendant for a period of one or more years.
(3) The confinement of the defendant in prison for a period of three or more consecutive years after the marriage of plaintiff and defendant.
(4) The commission of an act of adultery…
(5) The husband and wife have lived apart pursuant to a decree or judgment of separation for a period of one or more years after the granting of such decree or judgment, and satisfactory proof has been submitted by the plaintiff that he or she has substantially performed all the terms and conditions of such decree or judgment.
(6) The husband and wife have lived separate and apart pursuant to a written agreement of separation…
(7) The relationship between husband and wife has broken down irretrievably for a period of at least six months, provided that one party has so stated under oath.
No judgment of divorce shall be granted under this subdivision unless and until the economic issues of equitable distribution of marital property, the payment or waiver of spousal support, the payment of child support, the payment of counsel and experts' fees and expenses as well as the custody and visitation with the infant children of the marriage have been resolved by the parties, or determined by the court and incorporated into the judgment of divorce.”
And you are therefore saying that Torah law is "misogynist"?
ReplyDeleteIn Western terms, yes. For Torah believer, gezeiras Melech.
ReplyDeletePlease please try to read and understand before you write something. It would help avoid senseless exchanges.
ReplyDeleteIf you pay attention, you will see that I did not say anything about the Torah being misogynist. What I did say was that your raising the issue of no-fault divorce in the U.S. has absolutely nothing to do with the comment of "Avraham1," as he was discussing a system where only a man can initiate divorce.
Yehoshua, dear, please read the entirety of the exchange in context. The "misogynist" point was raised by Avraham. When I asked for his clarification on that point he said it is because a man can divorce his wife for trivial reasons. I then simply pointed out that secular law also allows a wife to divorce her husband for trivial reasons, so his stated reason for misogyny isn't unique to Judaism.
ReplyDeleteAvraham didn't say the Torah is misogynist due to only a man possessing the power to issue a divorce. He gave the aforementioned reason, which is what I addressed.
How are you fitting gezeiras melech into your point?
ReplyDeleteSo, in a nutshell, you believe the Torah is misogynist.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the burnt food, an American shiksa can divorce her husband for the reason of his having burnt her dinner when he cooked it for her. You're conflating trivial reasons with one-sided initiating divorce. But your point is now understood nevertheless.
Maybe you really don't know what "misogynist" means! FYI, it means "characterized by hatred or dislike of women." So Avraham's suggestion that allowing a man, and only a man, the right to exercise no-fault divorce is plausible. By contrast, your "counter" that this would render a law allowing either spouse, man or woman, the right to exercise a no-fault divorce as misogynist makes absolutely no sense. If it gives the same right to both men and women it cannot be defined as "characterized by hatred of or animus to women."
ReplyDeleteAvraham's original comment wasn't that one-way no fault divorce is misogynist. In fact, Avraham made no mention of no fault divorce until I entered that point into the discussion. Initially Avraham's point about misogyny was only that the mere fact a husband can halachicly divorce his wife on a whim over a trivial matter made Halacha misogynist. I essentially retorted that his stated reason is similar to what you'll find in all 50 U.S. States. It was only after that point in the discussion that the accusation of misogyny was laid at the feet of the halachic right to divorce altogether is only held by the husband.
ReplyDeleteYou still don't seem to be understanding the simple point that a law that treats the husband and wife equally cannot be called misogynist, but I am giving up.
ReplyDeleteI am glad we've reached a common ground.
ReplyDeleteThe common ground being correctly identifying your position.
ReplyDeleteNo one's disputing that nor has anyone suggested that point.
ReplyDelete