Get Refusal

[avromie7]

The case that was presented to her in the podcast was a hypothetical that the husband was 10000% objectively correct and the woman was 10000% objectively wrong. That does not happen on a regular basis, if ever.

So if she would agree that in the hypothetical case of a man being 10000% correct and the woman 10000% wrong, withholding a get is justified; but if you find a hint of something the man did wrong, he loses that right, then you think FG has a fair position? That means that in the common case of a feud where there is some blame on both sides, but she wants to make sure he never sees his kids, he would not be justified in withholding a get. I don't see why he needs to be a tzaddik gamur to have the right to not open himself up to abuse.

[Kobe Bryant]

she’s insane.

Understatement of the year!

[Yehuda57]

So if she would agree that in the hypothetical case of a man being 10000% correct and the woman 10000% wrong, withholding a get is justified; but if you find a hint of something the man did wrong, he loses that right, then you think FG has a fair position? That means that in the common case of a feud where there is some blame on both sides, but she wants to make sure he never sees his kids, he would not be justified in withholding a get. I don't see why he needs to be a tzaddik gamur to have the right to not open himself up to abuse.

The question is not about him or what he is entitled to. She's saying he can't use the get as a tool to stop the abuse and he needs to find other ways. I'm not saying I agree, I honestly (thank G-d) don't know nearly enough about the topic to have any kind of meaningful opinion.

Quite strikingly, Nechama Wasserman differed and said she feels the get should be part of the entire divorce proceedings being completed at the same time.

[avromie7]

The question is not about him or what he is entitled to. She's saying he can't use the get as a tool to stop the abuse and he needs to find other ways. I'm not saying I agree, I honestly (thank G-d) don't know nearly enough about the topic to have any kind of meaningful opinion.

Quite strikingly, Nechama Wasserman differed and said she feels the get should be part of the entire divorce proceedings being completed at the same time.

This is the problem with her position. She feels there is a problem of men not giving a get, so her solution is an unrelated innocent man must open himself up to abuse because of it. She takes this position because she decided the Torah is unfair, so on principle, everyone needs to "do their part" to make the Torah fair.

[avromie7]

Quite strikingly, Nechama Wasserman differed and said she feels the get should be part of the entire divorce proceedings being completed at the same time.

This bolsters her case by saying I'm not part of the mob trying to undermine the Torah, but now that everything is settled it's time for him to do his part.

[yuneeq]

A man should happily give up his family in order for his ex-wife to create a second family.

/s

[Yehuda57]

This bolsters her case by saying I'm not part of the mob trying to undermine the Torah, but now that everything is settled it's time for him to do his part.

100%

[AMH]

https://www.bhol.co.il/news/1587754

[AMH]

https://vinnews.com/2023/08/26/509091/

[imayid2]

Someone ought to send them a link to this story to get an inkling of the kedushay taus complexity.

[avromie7]

Someone ought to send them a link to this story to get an inkling of the kedushay taus complexity.

You've been re-opening a lot of controversial threads lately.

[JMHO]

Someone ought to send them a link to this story to get an inkling of the kedushay taus complexity.

I'm sure that will stop her...

[EliJelly]

You've been re-opening a lot of controversial threads lately.

I can imagine his pain for not being around here at the time..

[YitzyS]

NJ Appellate Court ruled yesterday on a get dispute. Didn't read the whole thing but I think the lower court issued a restraining order against a woman for putting out a video asking people to force her husband to give a get, and now the Appellate Court reversed that decision.

This is the official summery:
"In this matter, the court considered whether defendant's act of making and disseminating a video accusing her estranged husband of improperly withholding a get, a Jewish bill of divorce, and asking community members to "press" her husband to deliver the get constituted the predicate act of harassment, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(a), to justify the issuance of a final restraining order under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35.  The court held that defendant's communication was protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the New Jersey Constitution and did not fall into any of the narrow exceptions—incitement to imminent violence or true threats—which would rob it of its protected status.  The court likewise concluded that because defendant's communication was not impermissibly invasive of plaintiff's privacy and was animated by a legitimate purpose, the acquisition of a get, rather than a purpose to harass, it was not violative of the harassment statute.  Lastly, the court held that plaintiff's allegation that there was a general tendency of violence toward get refusers in the Jewish community was inapposite because the claim was not supported by the record and because the theoretical possibility that a third party will commit a criminal act cannot render otherwise permissible speech unlawful.  As a result, the court vacated the final restraining order entered against defendant."

https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2023/a0305-21.pdf

https://newjerseymonitor.com/2023/09/06/ruling-in-orthodox-jew-divorce-dispute-is-a-win-for-free-speech-and-womens-rights-advocates-say/

[chevron]

I can imagine his pain for not being around here at the time..

He regrets not being here in 2015 when I was rocking the boat 🚢

[imayid2]

NJ Appellate Court ruled yesterday on a get dispute. Didn't read the whole thing but I think the lower court issued a restraining order against a woman for putting out a video asking people to force her husband to give a get, and now the Appellate Court reversed that decision.

This is the official summery:
"In this matter, the court considered whether defendant's act of making and disseminating a video accusing her estranged husband of improperly withholding a get, a Jewish bill of divorce, and asking community members to "press" her husband to deliver the get constituted the predicate act of harassment, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(a), to justify the issuance of a final restraining order under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35.  The court held that defendant's communication was protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the New Jersey Constitution and did not fall into any of the narrow exceptions—incitement to imminent violence or true threats—which would rob it of its protected status.  The court likewise concluded that because defendant's communication was not impermissibly invasive of plaintiff's privacy and was animated by a legitimate purpose, the acquisition of a get, rather than a purpose to harass, it was not violative of the harassment statute.  Lastly, the court held that plaintiff's allegation that there was a general tendency of violence toward get refusers in the Jewish community was inapposite because the claim was not supported by the record and because the theoretical possibility that a third party will commit a criminal act cannot render otherwise permissible speech unlawful.  As a result, the court vacated the final restraining order entered against defendant."

https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2023/a0305-21.pdf

https://newjerseymonitor.com/2023/09/06/ruling-in-orthodox-jew-divorce-dispute-is-a-win-for-free-speech-and-womens-rights-advocates-say/

https://rabbidunner.com/saying-no-to-the-abuse-of-religion/
(Didn’t read it yet)

[letsgettserious]

Once you allow for using a get as leverage on some cases, then it becomes a matter of where you draw the line, which any husband could then abuse.

That doesn't mean she doesn't care about men losing their kids, but that's not her fight. Of all the things she said, that might be the least problematic.

You've bought into the marketing and hype, like so many people, thanks to the successful framing of the gett as "leverage" or "bargaining chip".

A gett is neither of those. A gett represents CONSENT to end the marriage and change the marital status of BOTH parties. It's the same with kiddushin, which represents CONSENT to enter the marriage.

If a woman consented to a halachic marriage, and all of the benefits it brings her, then she must acknowledge that the man has a right to consent to the terms of the divorce (assuming he fulfilled his marital obligations, which if not we beat him up)

[letsgettserious]

The tricky thing about Jewish marriage in galus is that we get married under two completely separate systems of law. When you get divorced, you need to choose one of those systems to follow to dictate the divorce process. You can't pick and choose the parts that work better for you; that's a disaster for everyone.

If you choose the secular law in your jurisdiction, you'll get a secular divorce from that jurisdiction and you'll be able to marry anyone else where that jurisdiciton's divorces are recognized. But you may not be able to marry other adherents to the religion in which you married

There is no guarantee that the other system of law will recognize your divorce. So for example, if a Jewish couple converted to Hinduism and then got divorced, they would now have 3 marriages to dissolve. Let's say the marriage broke up over the wife's desire to unconvert Hinduism and go back to Judaism. So she doesn't really care about the Hindu divorce, she only cares about the Jewish and secular. He doesn't care about the Jewish or secular, only the Hindu. If she takes him to Hindu court, she can't later demand the Hindu court force him to participate in a Jewish divorce. That would need to happen in front of a Jewish court as it's a different body of law.

Nearly all Agunahs today are simply women who took their divorces to secular court and had all the matters ruled on according to that body of law. The husband's simply want a halachic divorce because they still want to be fathers and they don't want to be chained to their ex-spouses through devastating monthly payments to her.

[LNS]

Nearly all Agunahs today are simply women who took their divorces to secular court and had all the matters ruled on according to that body of law. The husband's simply want a halachic divorce because they still want to be fathers and they don't want to be chained to their ex-spouses through devastating monthly payments to her.

[/b]

this is false
although there may be some marriages where that is the case
most are because the man in that situation are unfortunately unwell, looking for revenge or are trying to use as leverage to get something they want (not the kids)

[avromie7]

this is false
although there may be some marriages where that is the case
most are because the man in that situation are unfortunately unwell, looking for revenge or are trying to use as leverage to get something they want (not the kids)

this is false