August 27, 2014 8:12 pm at 8:12 pm #1032128
ZD, I agree. They should not have gone to the media.August 27, 2014 8:43 pm at 8:43 pm #1032129
What would you suggest is a better way other than media for my situation: where my brother in law is refusing to give me chalitzah in exchange for $$$ and the Rabbonim are dragging their feet.August 27, 2014 10:38 pm at 10:38 pm #1032130
Lior: Let me give you a perfect Mashal for your case. You are in essence saying that if someone hurts you pretty badly (let’s say they beat you up and maybe even leave some permanent damage), it is your right to torture them every day for the remainder of either of your lives. That is, in a word, evil. I don’t care if the attack was unprovoked.August 28, 2014 5:46 am at 5:46 am #1032131
No, I’m saying he has the right to defend himself (and his children) from being hurt. He doesn’t have to let himself be hurt by her wrongful action. With a divorce he will (likely) no longer be able to live with his children. He will no longer be able to see his children most of the time. That is very harmful to both him and the children. Divorce is traumatic for children. And then, of course, he is also losing all the time and investments he put into building his marriage. By electing not to divorce he isn’t seeking to harm or punish her – indeed he is hoping she’ll agree to return to the marriage – but rather he is making that decision to remain married to protect himself and the children from the harm of her wrongful and frivolous desire to divorce without cause. And he genuinely wants to continue his marriage to her and is ready to so, including fulfilling all his marital obligations to her. [Beis Din even has the right to demand, if they remain married because she demonstrated no valid cause justifying divorce, that she must return and remain with her husband and stop being a moredes.] Why are you giving greater credence to her pain (caused by her own decision) over the pain she is causing him and the children?
All because she thinks she “can do better” in a future marriage since he isn’t the rock star she thought he was when getting married? Or that she prefers the freedom of being single over remaining married? The Torah very clearly says he must WANT to divorce. If he doesn’t want to he doesn’t have to divorce says the Torah (if he didn’t harm her in the marriage). Why does the Torah say the husband has to want to divorce in order to do so? How can you possibly insist on pushing a divorce if he doesn’t want to whereas the Torah states it is only possible if he does want to? I don’t understand why you cite Rabi Akiva. Yes, we pasken like him. But he is very clearly only referring to his rights to divorce; not any obligation he has to divorce (or any rights of hers to be given a divorce).
BTW, how do you account for shema nasna eineha b’acher? Do you agree that is applicable today to deny her desire for a divorce as Chazal and the SA say? Halacha doesn’t give her the prerogative to wait it out for some timeframe to pass and then she can get out – and potentially get together with the one she had her eyes on.August 28, 2014 2:28 pm at 2:28 pm #1032132
Lior: The longer she says she wants out, the less likely it’s Nasnah Eineha and the more likely she doesn’t doesn’t feel happy in this marriage.
And yes, society is different nowadays than then. That doesn’t change any Dinim, but it does help us in judging whether each case is Nasnah Eineha or not.August 28, 2014 3:00 pm at 3:00 pm #1032133
I am sure that some have already stated this,
Withholding a Get is Evil, however so is killing someone, but everyone understands that there is a time that we have to use an evil act, such as to kill someone.
I think the same can be said in a Get, although it is an evil act, if however the wife is being unreasonably evil, and the husband is losing everything in his life, such as rights over his own children, I think there is a place for withholding the get.
Why should the husband be a victim to the wife?
Now of course, who will decide if this is the case or not, that is an issue.August 28, 2014 5:50 pm at 5:50 pm #1032134
The halchachic issues notwithstanding, we are actually observing a war of bad midos, in which the warring spouses are looking to inflict as much pain and anguish on the other. Divorce is ugly. Recognize it. It has become the exception that a couple enters the divorce process looking to resolve the issues amicably. There are only two professions that benefit – the lawyers and the toanim. Dayanim would rather spend their dayanus time doing Choshen Mishpat cases – they’re less ugly, and yield considerably more income. Everyone else, including the soon to be divorced couple, lose everything. Many friends abandon them, many family, and their social positions tend to diminish. All for the few moments of sweet revenge against the other.
Men have the options of withholding the get. Child support can be litigated, and sooner or later wrestled from the father through legal channels. Women have other resources to fight their wars. They include the accusations of domestic violence, child abuse, and other shenanigans to deny the father access to the children while dragging them through expensive court battles. Men find their reputations tarnished, even destroyed by these false allegations. But those are women’s weapons.
So either side can be washed down for exposing and implementing rather despicable midos, ones which we spent our yeshiva/school days learning about in mussar lectures, and the same ones we need to address as part of our Elul/teshuvah avodah. Which spouse is on the offense or defense varies per situation. I have trouble recognizing the generalizations about evil men or evil women. There are no reliable statistics. Numbers would not help anyway. If a case involves a nasty man, the majority figure of offensive women would not matter. And vice versa.
It becomes the obligation of those authority figures who get involved, whether askanim, professionals, rabbonim, etc. to address the couple at this level. “If you want to spend inordinate amounts of time and money fighting to the finish, you may. We will profit from it. The alternative is to participate in good faith efforts to negotiate. You’ll win some things and lose some things. All that you are guaranteed to experience is the absence of revenge. That is an issue to address, and some therapy may help for that. You will gain considerable savings in the short and long term, and the children will be granted a reprieve from the turmoil of ongoing battles between the parents. This alternative sounds like WIN-WIN.”August 28, 2014 11:54 pm at 11:54 pm #1032136
If indeed your facts are correct (and believe me when I say that in majority of cases the charges the wife makes are true! The police put them thru vigorous questioning and re-questioning and it’s not easy and very foolhardy to try to fool the police) mi have to say you’re contributing terribly to the problem! If you know of a lawyer who has broken the law this way and deserves to be disbarred it’s your obligation and others’ to speak up! If you bemoan the system that allows false accusations to be made, and you claim to know for a fact that lawyers are encouraging it, you’re only perpetuating the problem and helping it to be repeated with this crooked lawyer’s help!
And yes I know of the complete opposite of such cases too. The problem is so many in our community are too quick to believe the “frumme ” fine man we know on the outside can’t possibly do what he’s accused of, that’s wherein lies the problem, people judge and conclude without knowing anything. So many of you are making light here of the woman’s desire to end the marriage as if she just woke up,one morning decides she’s not happy and foolishly picks up and wants out. That’s absurd, most times it’s because of very serious issues and just because you’re not privy to the truth of what went on in the home don’t assume you understand and can judge and agree that the man has any right to withhold the get. He doesn’t, and Hashem Yisborach will hear the cries of the Agunos who are suffering at the hands of their miserable vindictive husband.August 29, 2014 1:30 am at 1:30 am #1032137
You’ve been drinking the kool-aid. I’m very sorry to tell you, but the percentage of false accusations about domestic violence is staggering. The estimates vary between 50-70% being false. All shelters for battered women require charges filed with police. Why? Because this process helps eliminate those accusations that are frivolous. (People mistakenly claim that the sponsoring agencies encouraged police reporting. Actually, it is a requirement of the city government that funds the shelter to insure that those who do not qualify will not be permitted to take up the space that someone who does qualify might need.)
I would never conclude that any report of DV is true or false. Following taking whatever action is needed to insure safety, just in case, there should be some process of investigation to verify whether the accusations have merit. You are correct that some of the perpetrators of DV appear to the public to be “frumme fine mentchen”, and that character witnesses from the shul where they daven are uninformative. You are accurate, but that does not mean there are no false accusations. There are, and the numbers are quite high. If you inquire from the agencies who assist victims of DV, they will confirm that they have men calling as well, and that their cases (by the time they seek outside help) are even more pitiful then the women victims.
Yes, there are lawyers who should be disbarred. I personally know some of them. One, in particular, tends to give up the cases part way, having earned some fees, then allowing another attorney to try his luck. Ask anyone connected to Family Court how many cases of DV get dismissed because of lack of evidence, and outright fabrication. I might not know a lot about other things, but in this case, the information I share is part of “The Little I Know”.
Please notice that I am not commenting about the withholding of the get. I am steadfast against it. However, I would never allow a get to be given if the agreement that settles the affairs of custody, support, division of assets, etc. is incomplete. Whoever holds back on that is the party responsible for delaying the get. And here it is a draw, 50-50. That is fact.August 31, 2014 5:32 am at 5:32 am #1032138
DaasYochid: On your point 2 to me, as you told Sam in your following comment, there’s no easy answer.August 31, 2014 5:36 am at 5:36 am #1032139
You didn’t seem to find it so difficult to condemn a woman to a lifetime of igun for the sake of precedent.August 31, 2014 6:46 am at 6:46 am #1032141
A husband who is ready and willing to support and treat and live with her as husband and wife and provide her with all his marital duties as he always had, and she walks out without cause, as I’ve stressed we’re discussing, is no igun but rather a moredes. I don’t think I’ve referenced precedent as a reason for anything. Nor have I discussed a case of an emotionally abusive spouse.August 31, 2014 7:04 am at 7:04 am #1032142
What if there’s no objective way to determine that he’s been abusive, but it’ s obvious that she is miserable? Do you still want to force her to stay with him? How do you define “without cause”?August 31, 2014 7:23 am at 7:23 am #1032143
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that ??? ???? ????? ???? was the reason that she has no credibility to state that she has committed adultery, thereby becoming prohibited to live with her husband. In other words, even if she claims to have no desire to divorce, but that divorce is required as a matter of Halacha, the husband is under no obligation to believe her claim.
This does not imply that when she asks for a get because she no longer wants to be married that it would be denied her on the basis of ??? ???.
To be sure, I am not saying that in fact a woman (or man, for that matter) has the right to cancel a marriage due to lack of interest; I am simply showing that this position can not be disproved on the strength of the ??? rule.August 31, 2014 7:24 am at 7:24 am #1032144
I’m speaking in abstract terms since I cannot judge any particular case, obviously. A case where objectively there is bona fide abuse that remains uncorrected would seem to me to constitute halachicly just cause to be able to demand in beis din and be granted a mandatory divorce. Regarding your asking about no objective determination, if abuse is claimed by his spouse and he denies it, I seem to recall that SA specifically says that B”D places a witness in their residence to determine the truth. Perhaps that can be a guide in answering your question.September 2, 2014 3:00 am at 3:00 am #1032145
Lior: The OP is discussing propriety. Good behavior. Rightness. Gan eden. The question is based on the viewpoint of the husband. Not beis din. Not the wife.
A husband whose wife wakes up one morning and firmly and permanently decides she wants a divorce, based on the way her dog sneezed that morning, is in a sad situation. He may have rights. He may have been wronged. BUT HE SHOULD STILL GIVE THE GET. Anything else is AT BEST revenge.
Every one of your arguments citing her responsibilities, how wronged he was, or bes din’s halachic perspective in dealing with evil/irrational people is missing the point.
The only moral argument you made that might make theoretical sense is regarding best interests of the children. What you aren’t addressing is that studies show that children do better through amicable divorces than they do through hostile marriages.September 2, 2014 3:26 am at 3:26 am #1032146
I too am discussing propriety, good behavior, righteousness and Gan Eden. Everything I’ve stated is within those parameters. His not giving a Get-on-demand because she woke up on the wrong side of the bed or just decided the single scene is more fun than married life or that he isn’t rich enough for her or that she’d prefer a European husband instead of an American like him or that he is boring or that he doesn’t bring her flowers or that he doesn’t get along with her parents or that he’s just not her type is NOT revenge and there is no default and automatic reason he should give it because she asked for it. And it is improper, bad behavior, unrighteous and a risk to her Gan Eden for her to insist on it unreasonably or to walk out unreasonably if he wishes to continue the marriage and fulfill his duties and obligations to provide her all her marital rights. And his reaction as such fulfills all aspects of propriety, good behavior, righteousness and Gan Eden.September 2, 2014 3:46 am at 3:46 am #1032147
Lior, you are not addressing the fact that at some point, it becomes reasonable to assume that she simply will not go back to him.September 2, 2014 3:58 am at 3:58 am #1032148
DY, I addressed that point above in my response to your Point 2.September 2, 2014 4:50 am at 4:50 am #1032149
Lior: So, once again, your claim is that it is the right thing for a husband to do to never give a Get, even after decades, if she decides without proper reason that she’s miserable with him. He is offering her everything and she constantly refuses. It’s entirely her fault. You are saying that the right thing to do is for him to withhold the Get forever even if it’s clear she never wants back.
I will claim that the mods have a moral responsibility to show this thread to every girl you ever date.September 2, 2014 5:17 am at 5:17 am #1032150
Lior, not really, because you keep on going back to the notion that he merely wants a functional marriage, without addressing situations where that’s not realistically going to happen.
Sam, I assume the mods have some kind of confidentiality issue (although I’m sure you didn’t mean it literally).September 2, 2014 5:25 am at 5:25 am #1032151
Nope, never said that. See my response to point 2. Besides, I don’t think my wife wants me to be dating. 🙂September 7, 2014 1:10 am at 1:10 am #1032152
DY, so lets address the situations where that’s not realistically going to happen.
You’re a dayan. A woman petitions the beis din for a Get. She says that she and her husband disagree on too many things in life so therefore they’re not compatible. That’s her basis. You and the other two dayanim determine that objectively her concerns, even if provable and true, do not fit into any halachic category that requires a husband to give a Get if he does not wish to. The husband, in the evaluation of the beis din you’re sitting on, earnestly and sincerely wishes to continue the marriage. He states he is ready and willing to fulfill all his marital obligations to her, as he had until she left. You and the dayanim agree there is no halachic basis to order a Get. What do you do at that stage (soon after she first walked out); order her to stop being a moredes and return to her husband? Is that what halacha requires?
Okay, that was when the case first came to court soon after the breakup. Now it is two or three years later. Literally nothing changed. She still didn’t return and wants the Get – and he sincerely still wants the marriage. They come back to beis din. At this point you’re sure there’s no realistic chance she’ll ever change her mind or go back. But you also see he is sincere in his stated desire to continue the marriage. You think he is being completely unrealistic and perhaps even delusional in thinking that might happen but you acknowledge his sincerity. You and the other dayanim strongly advise him that you highly recommend he give it since you believe there is no realistic chance she’ll change her mind. He politely declines following the suggestion. I maintain halacha doesn’t obligate he give it and he gets no aveira for not giving it (and she is continually sinning by having walked out), and doesn’t even allow beis din to advise him that he is halachicly required to give it or to demand or pressure that he do so.
Do you disagree and maintain that he, at this stage, is halachicly required to give it? Do you as dayan order him to give it? I maintain that if the beis din does order or pressure it, even if he says even though I don’t want to give it but if beis din orders I am obligated to give it, then I will give it on that basis, it constitutes a Get Me’usa.
What do you, as a dayan, do to insure halachic compliance by both parties as well as insure the beis din itself follows proper halachic requirements here that doesn’t result in a get me’usa or worse?September 7, 2014 1:27 am at 1:27 am #1032153September 7, 2014 1:58 am at 1:58 am #1032154
You linked to fny’s comment to me and my response to him. What is your action as a dayan in the above scenario based on your understanding of halacha?September 7, 2014 5:59 am at 5:59 am #1032155
I’m not a dayan, and I don’t like to answer shailos about which I’m merely guessing. If I had to guess, probably ???? ?????, not ???? ?????.
What is your recommendation in such a case regarding “propriety, good behavior, righteousness and Gan Eden”? That is the topic of the OP, after all.September 7, 2014 6:27 am at 6:27 am #1032156
I think Lior has some really great points.
In fact personally I’m aware of a pretty famous case where every Dayan involved was fully aware that there was no reason what so ever for her to demand a get.
In fact the Beis Din was in possesion of a letter she wrote right before leaving where she stated unequivically that the man in question was a “great husband”. She just decided she wanted something else in life. The husband then said fine, however he stated that he was not fine with the sutody arrangements and would withhold the get until it was arranged to his satisfaction.
In this case the Dayanim involved all agreed that from a Halachic standpoint there was absolutly no reason that he had to give a get.
Yet demonstrations were held in front of the mans house, and some Dayanim tried to come out with convulted reason swhey he was mechuyov to give the get even though halachically she was wrong!
I think the wider, underlying problem is that we as a society have absorbed a drop to much of the culture around us.
Even in America until recently there was no concept of a “no-fualt” divorce.
If you married and you committed to a relationship. You now had a responsibilty to maintain that relatonship, a responsibilty that was strengthened once children would come into the picture. If you wanted to end it you had to have a good reason to.
You could not just have “divorce on demand” and who cares about what it meant for the person you committed to.September 7, 2014 6:42 am at 6:42 am #1032157
Ben Levi, in case you haven’t been following the thread, the issue here is not what the woman should do, and not what beis din should do. It’s what the husband should do.
I may agree with you regarding his right to use the get as leverage to be given what is rightfully his (and Sam will likely still disagree), but Lior said nothing about custody arrangements in his case.
It seems to me that he’s avoiding the question, because he switched from “propriety, good behavior, righteousness and Gan Eden” to what a beis din would say.September 8, 2014 2:56 pm at 2:56 pm #1032158
Quite honestly, any husband who insists on forcing his wife to stay in a marriage she’s unhappy in, no matter what her reasons are, is unstable. Such a marriage where only one wants to be there has no chance of succeeding Ina healthy way and will on,y teach the children how to function in marriage in a Dysfunctional way.September 9, 2014 4:19 am at 4:19 am #1032159
Yes the q is what the husband should do.
However how about looking at it from another perspective.
Instead of asking whether the husband shougive the get, how about asking if the wife has the moral right to ask for the get?
You see in case’s (and there are many of them, sadly) where the wife really has no moral right to be asking for a get, I do not see why the husband is morally obligated to give the get.September 9, 2014 5:14 am at 5:14 am #1032160
Ben Levi: Simple question, yes or no: Is it cruel to prevent someone from ever remarrying when they are clearly unhappy in their current marriage?September 9, 2014 5:14 am at 5:14 am #1032161
Instead of asking whether the husband shougive the get, how about asking if the wife has the moral right to ask for the get?
In some situations she does, and in some, she doesn’t.
I do not see why the husband is morally obligated to give the get.
Because in a situation where the marriage has no chance of working, the motive for him to withold the get would be revenge, which is immoral.September 9, 2014 6:03 am at 6:03 am #1032162
If there are children involved?
Then in many cases the “immoral” decision is a person (man or woman) who is trying to break up a home and thereby significantly impacting the children that he or she brought into the world.
If there are no such factors, then I do not know if it is “cruel”, there really are very very rare cases where the husband refuses to give a get simply for “spite”. (I am aware of several cases, none of them were cases where the husband was refusing to give a get simply for “spite”.)September 9, 2014 9:28 am at 9:28 am #1032163
If the spouse (either the husband or the wife) is sincerely wanting and offering to continue the existing marriage, he/she is not preventing anyone from being married. And “unhappiness” isn’t a basis for divorce. (Hashem knows how many people regret having gotten divorced and are more unhappy as a result.) Rabbeinu Gershom specifically gave wives the right to decline to divorce if the unhappy husband wants to divorce her. (The husband had the equivalent ability beforehand.) Clearly R”G (and the Torah) say one spouse can insist on making the existing marriage work against the desire of the other and the motive for doing so is not “revenge” and can work.
Ben Levi has my vote.September 9, 2014 12:58 pm at 12:58 pm #1032164
This all may be true at a point where the marriage is salvageable. I am talking about point where it is not.
There may be children suffering, and her reasons may have been wrong and immoral, and she may herself be guilty of cruelty, but in that situation, it is indeed spite.September 9, 2014 8:17 pm at 8:17 pm #1032165
Now it is two or three years later. Literally nothing changed. She still didn’t return and wants the Get – and he sincerely still wants the marriage.
I think this is an unrealistic scenario.
BTW, misogyny is not a Torah value.September 9, 2014 9:57 pm at 9:57 pm #1032166
Bottom line: if someone seriously wants out of the emotional aspect of the relationship of marriage, there is nothing anyone can do to stop them. Once this occurs, it is cruel, controlling and abusive to force them to remain in a legal relationship.September 9, 2014 10:00 pm at 10:00 pm #1032167
And, of course, the children are far, far, better off dealing with divorce than dealing with this stuff. Not giving a get when asked for seems to me a foolproof method of messing up the kids.September 9, 2014 10:12 pm at 10:12 pm #1032168
This will make me unpopular for sure, but it seems to me that if the woman is unjustified in asking for a Get, then she is the aggressor and the husband is under no obligation whatsoever to grant her one.
The fact that she is completely determined and committed to ruin the marriage is worthless. She is inflicting harm and that can obligate no one.
If the kids get ruined thereby, it is she who has ruined them. Not him.
(I do fully understand that the husbands best interest is not to have his kids ruined, so he would grant the Get instead. I discuss only who is at fault.)
Again, marriage is no prison. If she cannot hack it, she is entitled to leave. But only if she must. If she wants a divorce because she thinks she can do better or for variety’s sake, she is doing wrong.
She is entitled to petch, lots of them.September 9, 2014 10:40 pm at 10:40 pm #1032169
Leibidik, you contradict yourself. First you say she’s not entitled if she’s the aggressor. Then you seem to imply that she can get out but deserves “petch”.
I agree with the second part. The thing is, in judaism, when someone deserves “petch” we let God do the “potching”. Doing it ourselves, purely for the sake of revenge, is completely wrong.
If the marriage is over, not giving a get (with all other things resolved) can only be revenge.
The marriage is over if either party permanently decides so. For any reason.September 10, 2014 12:41 am at 12:41 am #1032170
The thing is that in Judaisim the husband is under nop obligation in many of these case’s to give a get and Beis Din does not have the kegal basis to obligate him even if they feel that the “smarter” thing for him is to give one.September 10, 2014 12:44 am at 12:44 am #1032171
I actually think that walking away from a man she dated commited to marrying, built a home and had children with.
Now telling such a man that he is not good enough or she want to try something else is abusive towards hima and the children.
His refusing to give a get is more like a desperate attempt to shield himself from her abuse.September 10, 2014 1:51 am at 1:51 am #1032172
DY: “What is your recommendation in such a case regarding “propriety, good behavior, righteousness and Gan Eden”?”
“the issue here is not what the woman should do, and not what beis din should do. It’s what the husband should do.”
All these issues are intertwined and can be discussed together.
“If I had to guess, probably ???? ?????, not ???? ?????.”
So we agree there is no ???? ?????. Where do you find in halacha this scenario attributed to a ???? ?????? The ???? ????? I see halacha citing are situations as ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????
“This all may be true at a point where the marriage is salvageable.”
Which is what I am discussing. Why your seeming reluctance to acknowledge a marriage may be salvageable much much more often than modern society treats it or accepts? And very well may be salvageable even where one spouse thinks it is not salvageable. Much like ???? ????? taught us in his ??? *extending* the ability for one spouse to unilaterally salvage the marriage against the will of the other spouse! Placing an arbitrary or even objective timeframe after which one spouse who simply walked out could then wait it out for the timeframe to pass would simply undermine and effectively eliminate halacha’s (and ???? ?????’s) insistence that there is no unilateral right to a divorce; and all the halachas describing what does and what does not justify a divorce would go out the window.
Avrom: It isn’t a Torah value to unwarrantedly break up a family. There is no right-to-divorce or divorce-on-demand in Judaism. As far as the realisticness of the timeframe is concerned, don’t forget that halacha specifically says a divorce can only be done if the husband desires it. This point isn’t just theoretical or something that doesn’t simply mean exactly that. Halacha does not at all say that husband must desire it if it is requested of him (barring the occurrence of abuse.) The Torah explicitly says that a divorce only is done if he wants to do it, meaning if he doesn’t want to do it he has no moral, ethical or legal obligation to change his mind. What if someone gives you a gift and later changes his mind? You have no obligation whatsoever to return the gift to him as much as he wants it back. Secondly, what is or isn’t realistic is in the eyes of the beholder. A court cannot rule on the realisticness of a situation where there is no obligation in the first place. As I said earlier; perhaps objectively it is an unrealistic expectation; perhaps he is being delusional in thinking the her mind will change. Do we fault a person for unreasonably holding out for and davening for a refuah for an ill family member’s recovery when it is “unreasonable” to expect that to happen? Also take into consideration that she is sinning [being a moredes] by having unjustifiably walked out of the marriage. The Torah itself gives him the moral right to hold out when it says it can only be given according to his will. Now what I just related doesn’t jibe well in modern 21st century societal values; but it is our eternal Torah values even if secular society has embraced no-fault divorce.
BTW, a slightly tangential point that Ben Levi raised and DY seemed to agree with, is that if one spouse unreasonably seeks a divorce against the other spouses will, then the spouse wishing to continue the marriage, even if he agrees to terminate it per the insistence of his spouse, has the moral right to hold out for an acceptable custody arrangement for himself before giving it. After all he would like to continue the marriage both spouses committed to and raised children under and there is no obligation on his part to agree to a divorce and normally a parent lives with his children in his home. It is both callous and maleficent to unwillingly force a person out of a marriage he put his life into building and put him into a situation of being divorced when it is unreasonable and all other options have not been exhausted. And it is certainly unfair if not cruel (for both the parent and the children) that a parent and his children should lose daily access and daily interactivity with each other in their upbringing because a spouse capriciously demanded a divorce and the breakup of the family.
fny: I beg to differ. I strongly posit that most divorces were avoidable and in the long term the children suffer from the divorce having occurred rather than the marriage being preserved. The examples to the contrary are the exception not the rule.September 10, 2014 2:00 am at 2:00 am #1032173
With this I think we’ve covered most of what there’s to be said. As much as I stand my ground in my position, I’ll yield the floor to those who wish to have the last word as to give them the opportunity to give me the last shtuch. Maybe we’ll be zoche to another comment on my dismal dating prospects. 😉September 10, 2014 2:15 am at 2:15 am #1032174
A few points in response:
1) You are equating her being wrong with him being right. It doesn’t work that way.
2) Not being cruel and vindictive is very much a Torah value, not merely a modern fabrication.
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.
4) Yes, I think he can withold for custody issues, but for Gan Eden purposes the arrangement should be based in the children’s best interest, not his or even “justice’s” best interest.
5) There is no question that there are cases where the marriage is unsalvagable. I think this should be determined by an objective party, according to Torah values rather than modern values, and when it is determined, and all other matters are reasonably settled, he should, and should be encouraged to, give the get.
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.September 10, 2014 3:06 am at 3:06 am #1032175
I have to laugh at the theoretical nature of all these discussions. A divorce is one situation where you can sit and hock from today until tomorrow about what would be/should be but you will never ever get enough honest details to have a clue in real life. Even the people involved get so caught up in their negius that they can’t always keep straight who threw the first proverbial punch.
I have a friend involved in a divorce where one side spread all kinds of rumors that are so easy to believe. People can’t help but take sides, and mostly not his. The truth is so crazy that you would never believe it without seeing it with your own eyes. He offered her a get a year ago and her lawyer refused it. He offered it again now and the lawyer told the bais din “no”, not until the case is closed (custody is actually already decided). Oddly enough, they have already spread the word around that he is refusing to offer a get. perhaps they will continue to refuse the get until he has sufficiently been smeared beyond what has already been done. But any of you who heard the rumor would certainly believe it and would never think that the lawyer is the one writing letters of refusal to the bais din.
The facts are so hard to pin down unless you are there at every turn. We can never ever know who is really at fault or how true their allegations are. Splitting hairs over what should be done in certain situations doesn’t help if we can never really know if a certain situation even applies. It always boils down to a he said-she said and how can anyone possibly rule on anything but speculation.September 10, 2014 6:15 pm at 6:15 pm #1032176
It isn’t a Torah value to unwarrantedly break up a family.
Also take into consideration that she is sinning
Your assumption that a woman wanting a divorce is acting capriciously, unless she can provide you with clear-cut evidence of abuse, is fundamentally misogynistic. Sometimes valid reasons are difficult or terrifying to articulate, and some abuse can be hidden from all but the victim. There may also be other valid reasons not involving abuse, such as an irreparable loss of trust.
Also, two wrongs don’t make a right. One spouse acting badly does not validate the other spouse acting badly.
If a couple is going to beis din for divorce proceedings, the home is R”L already broken, and it would take both of them to rebuild it. This cannot be forced on one of them.
It is both callous and maleficent to unwillingly force a person out of a marriage he put his life into building and put him into a situation of being divorced when it is unreasonable and all other options have not been exhausted.
Your attempts but failures to make statements like this gender-neutral (writing spouse or person, but then exclusively using he and him) are revealing.
In a marriage, do you think it is only the husband who puts his life into building it?September 10, 2014 7:57 pm at 7:57 pm #1032177
I’m not understanding some comments here. A marriage requires two people to love each other and jointly make their home function. A home cannot stand with stability if there is disunity. That lack of stability has profound negative effect on the two spouses, and it also affects the children. When a couple gets into the parsha of divorce, they have given up on the prospect of repairing the relationship. It only requires one party to make the marriage non-functional. So if they stayed legally and halachically married, the scars and instability remains. No one stays happy if the halachic get and/or legal divorce are either refused or delayed.
Many commenters addressed the halachos of whether a woman can demand a get if the husband wants to maintain the marriage. I will not enter into that discussion, and it probably is better off being discussed in the beis hamedrash, not cyberspace. The question here, obviously in the general sense, is whether it is OK to withhold a get. The general answer is “Of course not”. But that does not translate into any specific case.
It is foolish to have a mesiras haget before the affairs are settled. Permitted by halacha, but stupid. It takes both parties to negotiate in good faith to reach an agreement. They have usually become adversarial, so this process is bound to involve some complication. Extorting money as a payoff to give or receive a get are commonplace. The vocabulary most appropriate to describe the morality level of this would be blocked by the moderators. Counseling for shalom bayis is great IF BOTH PARTIES WANT IT. If one is motivated and the other is not, the failure is guaranteed. Engaging in a counseling effort may be pleasing to the one referring them and profitable to the one conducting the services and getting paid. But it has no discernible benefit to the marriage.
Anyone doing marital therapy/counseling must assess the motivation level of the two people. It is not the counselor’s role to tell either of them they are wrong or right. That actually promotes divisiveness, and it undermines the prospect of restoring a relationship. If either of them is resolute in wanting to leave the marriage, it is most responsible to accept that and address the future recognizing that they will not function as a couple. This is using saichel, not strict halacha. It is often the letter of the law is not what the ????? instruct us to follow. Maybe the pressuring is worth questioning, but a get should be given when the viability of the marriage is gone. Only one of the two partners in the marriage needs to have given up on it for it to be nonviable. Nothing I said here is partial to either men or women.September 10, 2014 8:00 pm at 8:00 pm #1032178
Avram, there’s no point in making diyukim and speculating on a poster’s sinister intentions.
You wrote, “two wrongs don’t make a right. One spouse acting badly does not validate the other spouse acting badly”, and you are 100% correct, even considering both spouses equally.
I also agree that there could be underlying issues which can be difficult to articulate. However, this could go either way, it’s not husband or wife specific.September 10, 2014 10:15 pm at 10:15 pm #1032179
there’s no point in making diyukim and speculating on a poster’s sinister intentions
Stepping back a bit, I think I agree with you. I should not have included that sentence. Obviously I have strong feelings about the arguments made in this thread, but I shouldn’t make speculations beyond the arguments themselves.
I also agree that there could be underlying issues which can be difficult to articulate. However, this could go either way, it’s not husband or wife specific.
Absolutely, and especially in cases of abuse or domestic violence, where men frequently do not speak up because of embarrassment, fear of not being believed, or because the support systems out there (e.g., shelters, hotlines) are not geared towards men. Misandry is just as wrong as misogyny, and both are prevalent in secular American culture.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.