DY: TY for your last comment. Avram: TY for that retraction. I take this discussion exclusively in the realm of Torah, halachic, ethical, moral, fairness, justice and the absolutely proper way to conduct life in a heavenly manner. As I’ve stressed multiple times.
“1) You are equating her being wrong with him being right. It doesn’t work that way.”
I am not making that equation. But you’re correct that it doesn’t work that way.
“2) Not being cruel and vindictive is very much a Torah value, not merely a modern fabrication.”
Correct. And neither myself nor anyone else said otherwise. The hypothetical situation I described did not include any cruelty or vindictiveness. It was governed by love, as I stressed.
“3) ???? ????? are the precise words I heard from a dayan regarding a case where al pi din he is not obligated to divorce her, but he should for Gan Eden purposes. I am not knowledgeable enough to go through all of the relevant halachos with you; as I said, it’s a guess.”
Attributing it to an unidentified dayan isn’t helpful without halachic reasoning. The halachic qualifications of ???? ????? includes what I quoted from Rambam but not the scenario you described, according to the sources.
“5) There is no question that there are cases where the marriage is unsalvagable.”
Indeed, and I haven’t said otherwise. That being said, the stress in our generation must be on the salvageable not the unsalvageable. Most contemporary divorces (including r’l in our own communities), as I’ve stated, were avoidable and unnecessary I dare say. And we should strive to avoid in the future.
“6) Although I’m no expert, from the little I’ve read, you misunderstand the purpose of the cherem d’Rabeinu Gershom regarding a forced get. It is not so that she can prolong the marriage indefinitely; it’s to prevent him from easily divorcing her at whim. In no way, shape or form does this indicate that there isn’t a point in time at which it’s clear that she should accept the get.”
You are contradicting the plain meaning of R”G’s stated cherem. If the husband has no valid cause for giving his wife a divorce and on that basis the wife is insistent to continue the marriage, she has that right indefinitely per R”G.
“Your assumption that a woman wanting a divorce is acting capriciously”
I made no such assumption. I described a hypothetical scenario that constitutes that fact.
“unless she can provide you with clear-cut evidence of abuse, is fundamentally misogynistic.”
1) You’re disagreeing with halacha. Shulchan Aruch insist she must present solid evidence of such to beis din. So much in fact that S”A rules that if she can’t provide it then beis din can only accept the claim by placing a witness in their residence to determine the truth. 2) I never even mentioned or discussed a claim of abuse in the scenarios I described. In fact I overtly described a scenario that there was no abuse.
“There may also be other valid reasons not involving abuse, such as an irreparable loss of trust.”
What reason is or is not valid in suing for divorce is a halachic matter that halacha stipulates and isn’t determined by gut feeling. Do you have any halachic source giving an ambiguous irreparable loss of trust as a valid reason for divorce? I didn’t see that in S”A’s list of given valid reasons so perhaps I overlooked it.
“One spouse acting badly does not validate the other spouse acting badly.”
Agreed. Declining to divorce for valid reasons and continuing to be ready and available to live in an ongoing marriage is not acting badly. It is acting goodly. The badly acting is refusing to accept living in an existing marriage if there’s no valid reason to refuse to.
“If a couple is going to beis din for divorce proceedings, the home is R”L already broken”
That’s an incorrect assumption and an assumption that disagrees with clear cut halacha that a beis din is deputized to refuse to grant a requested divorce.
“and it would take both of them to rebuild it.”
Agreed.
“This cannot be forced on one of them.”
According to halacha it can be forced on one of them.
“Your attempts but failures to make statements like this gender-neutral”
No such attempt was intended (I try to follow The Economist’s Style Guide’s use of terms such as “he” in a general non-gender specific sense – old fashioned, I know). Hilchos Gittin is *not* gender-neutral. There are large differences in the rights and responsibilities between the genders. We ought to accept this Torah truth even if it causes indigestion to a contemporary 21st century society mind.
“In a marriage, do you think it is only the husband who puts his life into building it?”
No. Both must.
Please accept my apologies if my tone came across stronger than intended.
TLIK: I don’t agree this discussion should be limited to the Beis Medrash. If you could explain why you feel so I’d be happy to reconsider your point. Otherwise I do agree with you that given an individual situation it is possible that the obstinacy of one spouse may make it impossible for the marriage to continue though I don’t necessarily agree that the absolute insistence of one party means the other party should necessarily agree to divorce. And if you posit that the ????? want something other than the stipulation of halacha you’ll need to point to their statement as such rather than postulate. But I don’t think such obstinacy always must necessarily destroy a marriage. But an individual case may necessitate a divorce depending on the various factors if the net result is it isn’t viable to continue. And if so that has to be a factor in giving a divorce.