The Tamar Epstein Saga

[AJK]

I'll just play devil's advocate here who considers it wrong only the women's side...

Disagree. I'd wager there are plenty of men who feel that witholding a get is wrong, especially in certain cases.

[yuneeq]

She violated halacha by going to secular courts? If yes: sometimes I wake up late and don't daven. Because I struggle with that are you saying shabbas and kosher and 613 other things are "worth nothing" to me? Said another way, are you claiming to be perfect?

Yes if the BD didn't send her there, she violated Halacha.
I was waiting for you to mention the violation of other random aveiros.

The difference here, is that the get process requires doing to BD to resolve the money issues and other issues. If she doesn't believe in the process and decides to go to court that's her problem.

[AJK]

Bad people rape rob and murder.
Everybody who believes that the court is being unfair (possibly because he knows for a fact that his wife lied), will withold a get.

Bad people rape, rob, and murder? Well, I'd argue that withholding a get in certain instances makes that person "bad."

[yochiek93]

Again, a value judgment.

"Make things right?" What on earth does that mean?

Also, your first question pretty much exposes your position on this.

Not really I'm just bringing out the husbands side it can go both ways so don't jump to conclusions

[Redbull3]

Yes if the BD didn't send her there, she violated Halacha.
I was waiting for you to mention the violation of other random aveiros.

The difference here, is that the get process requires doing to BD to resolve the money issues and other issues. If she doesn't believe in the process and decides to go to court that's her problem.

It is an aveira to use secular courts to resolve financial and custody disputes- is that what you are saying? If yes, I hear where you are coming from. That sounds super radical to my modern orthodox ears.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

How often is it only  that?

Hopefully not very often but in this situation I would have to rely of the common sense G-d gave me. I would ask myself what would G-d want me to do in this situation. No need to ask yourself what is the right thing to do. Any decent person knows the answer to that.

[yochiek93]

Disagree. I'd wager there are plenty of men who feel that witholding a get is wrong, especially in certain cases.

I'm not arguing that it goes for all cases but same goes the other way as well

[Baruch]

Bad people rape, rob, and murder? Well, I'd argue that withholding a get in certain instances makes that person "bad."

Of course! The key words being "in certain instances".
@RedBull is advocating that using the get as leverage is always bad.

[yochiek93]

Of course! The key words being "in certain instances".
@RedBull is advocating that using the get as leverage is always bad.

+10000

[Baruch]

It is an aveira to use secular courts to resolve financial and custody disputes- is that what you are saying? If yes, I hear where you are coming from. That sounds super radical to my modern orthodox ears.

google ערכאות

[Redbull3]

google ערכאות

Thanks

[AJK]

Not really I'm just bringing out the husbands side it can go both ways so don't jump to conclusions

I'm not jumping to anything; I simply commented that a Court makes determinations based on the "best interests of the child." And, again, barring any extra ordinary circumstances, I'll that that determination over the very obviously biased position of one of the parties.

All this nonsense about "making things right" and "the guy feels" and "believes" he got the short end of the stick, etc.

I guess the only retort would be that a BD would have decided differently than the court; that's a tougher question.

[skyguy918]

I'm not jumping to anything; I simply commented that a Court makes determinations based on the "best interests of the child." And, again, barring any extra ordinary circumstances, I'll that that determination over the very obviously biased position of one of the parties.

All this nonsense about "making things right" and "the guy feels" and "believes" he got the short end of the stick, etc.

I guess the only retort would be that a BD would have decided differently than the court; that's a tougher question.

Most of the time that's why they're in court in the first place.

[AJK]

Of course! The key words being "in certain instances".
@RedBull is advocating that using the get as leverage is always bad.

What I'm saying is that I don't believe that a man is ipso facto entitled to withhold the get simply because he decides that a Court "wronged him."

To be sure, it would appear the Torah gives him that right, but I'm not sure it's a "Torah value" to withhold a get without a valid, objective basis.

[yochiek93]

What I'm saying is that I don't believe that a man is ipso facto entitled to withhold the get simply because he decides that a Court "wronged him."

To be sure, it would appear the Torah gives him that right, but I'm not sure it's a "Torah value" to withhold a get without a valid, objective basis.

Good point

[AJK]

Most of the time that's why they're in court in the first place.

That's an issue.

This is going to sound weird coming from a secular court litigator, but if Gd-fearing Jew would have pursued his claims in BD, would have gotten a verdict more favorable than what was decided by a secular court (to which he was dragged against is will), I must say that in my view, the husband has a leg to stand on...

[Redbull3]

What I'm saying is that I don't believe that a man is ipso facto entitled to withhold the get simply because he decides that a Court "wronged him."

To be sure, it would appear the Torah gives him that right, but I'm not sure it's a "Torah value" to withhold a get without a valid, objective basis.

This is  exactly how I feel, except I would replace "I'm not sure" with "I'm sure it's not".

[avromie7]

I'm not jumping to anything; I simply commented that a Court makes determinations based on the "best interests of the child." And, again, barring any extra ordinary circumstances, I'll that that determination over the very obviously biased position of one of the parties.

All this nonsense about "making things right" and "the guy feels" and "believes" he got the short end of the stick, etc.

I guess the only retort would be that a BD would have decided differently than the court; that's a tougher question.

The courts are very feminist, they are not unbiased. The husband has a right to demand it all be settled according to halacha.

[Aaaron]

Yes if the BD didn't send her there, she violated Halacha.
I was waiting for you to mention the violation of other random aveiros.

The difference here, is that the get process requires doing to BD to resolve the money issues and other issues. If she doesn't believe in the process and decides to go to court that's her problem.

No it doesn't.  That's modernish BS.  The get is a wholly separate entity from money and custody issues.  It's only tied together by recalcitrant husbands and their supporters.  Give me a m'kor for the husband to be able to withhold the get until the other issues are resolved? 

Separate question:  If she gets a monetary and custody award greater than what halacha would dictate, is she stealing/kidnapping?

[avromie7]

Let's say she broke into his house, beat him up and stole his money. Even then, you think withholding a Get as "punishment" is less than pure evil? I just can't see that side. Am I the only one?

A get is the conclusion of a marriage, a marriage is not over till all the details are worked out. If she is withholding from him his halachik rights to see his kids and she's extracting money against halacha the marriage isn't over.