- This topic has 87 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
ujm:
You wrote: “I don’t believe any judge will override their amicably and jointly presented agreement to the court. Even if there is some law on that books giving the judge that technical right.”
My experience is in NYS. This is what usually happens, because the toanim and BD are cautious to not include anything that flouts the law. Let me explain. In NYS, no arbitration panel has the authority to rule on matters of custody and child support. If the agreement provides less child support than the court mandates, the agreements, even with all signatures affixed is trashed. The court views itself as the advocate for the children, and will not allow the parents to cheat the kids out of the minimal support required by the law. There are ways of tinkering with the settlement issues here, which are exceptions included in the statute. And the batei din and toanim are usually well versed in this. Your statement is not acccurate, but it happens that way most of the time.
Abba – I’m pretty sure your calculation of 50% in cash before taxes is wrong. 50% of the expenses, maybe, not of the income.
ujm:
You wrote: “That being said, the majority of frum divorces, in fact, do NOT end up in contentious/bitter secular court proceedings. I certainly stand by my assertion that the large majority of frum Yidden are Yirei Shamayim.”
As per the observations of several askanim who are busy with the parsha of divorce in the frum community, the amount of contention is quite high. You might be correct that not all of these end up in secular court. I do not know the numbers. And the issue is not just the number of cases, but the magnitude of bitterness and prolonged conflict that is so destructive to all involved.
I would like to agree with you assertion that a large majority of frum Yidden are Yirei Shomayim. I won’t be mekatreig to say the opposite. But there are a few things worth noting. One – the arena of divorce is highly emotional, and brings out bad midos, eventhose that have been well controlled until now. Two – as much as I wish that one can assume the fellow wearing talis and tefillin at the next table in shul, who is there on time every day, who does not talk during davening, who gives his tzedokoh to the panhandlers regularly is a Yerai Shomayim, it may not be true. I refer to the problem that there are many, many people with dual lives. In public, they conform, and do all as one would hope. In private, there are other dynamics. There are those that (albeit with justifications) cheat in business, are massig gevul, are otherwise dishonest, use their devices (in private) in manners that are not permissible, are apt to gaze where they should not, and numerous other infractions that are away from the public view. I wish your assertion was accurate. Striving for that is a challenge, even for the individual. And today’s world is frought with nisyonos that surpass anything ever imagined by earlier generations. So, I’m not judging, just commenting.
Rabbi Twerski ZT”L once shared with a public forum a story of a talmid of Rav Chaim Vittal who passed away young. He appeared in a dream to his rebbe, and inquired why he received a sentence in BD Shel Maaloh that was punitive. He stated that he was a huge talmid chochom, a mekubal, and a list of other wonderful traits. Rav Chaim Vittal answered him that these positives were all true. “But,” continued Rav Chaim, “At home you were a tyrant. You abused your wife (either emotionally or other).” This Yirai Shomayim, who was indeed accomplished in life, was judged in his abolute judgment according to the rest of his being. I approach the assumptions about YIrai Shomayim with reservation.
Syag:
While I cannot vouch for the 50% figure, the basis for calculation for child support is not based on the expenses for the children, but on the parent’s income. I believe in NYS (you may check with the statutes and with attorneys for accuracy here), the demand for support of one child is a max of 17% of the parent’s income. Assuming that the child is residing with the mothers, we are talking about the father’s income. For 2 children, that percentage rises to 25%. I’m not sure whether there are higher percentages for largewr numbers of children.
TLIK – alimony is based on income, child support is based on expenses. But I only know local so that info is from a handful of websites. If you know differently from experience I defer to you.
Syag – 50% is a rareity but if there are 5 or more children that’s already 35% of their income. This amount is then prorated based on the percentage of thier income. If the wife isn’t working, child support is calculated soley on his income. Then he also has to pay for the children’s medical insurance, plus he maybe forced to pay for childcare so that his ex can go to school or work. Tuition and camp can also be added to this amount. As a general rule it never goes over 50%.
Note I am not a lawyer and this is for NY State residents only other jurisdictions may calcuate shild support diffrently but it’s based on the parents income.Abba- that is not what I read, but like I said, if you know differently then wonderful. I just don’t know what the ketch is about since those are all his expenses anyway. I’m sure my kids expenses eat up most if not all of my income, so? Did someone promise otherwise? What kind of person complains about supporting their own kids?
Syag- If the children expenses eat up all your income who pays for your housing clothing and utilities ?Child support requires no documentation so the ex can spend it as she sees fit, for herself and or for the children. The question comes down to is this money considered her money since she can spend it as she sees fit or is it the children’s money since it is suppose to be spent on them. If it’s her money he has a right to complain. If it’s the children’s money and she can’t use it on herself then the father should not complain.
Syag:
You wondered: “What kind of person complains about supporting their own kids?”
I wonder whether visiting in court as a spectator is possible. If so, try it. You may have a point, that a father doesn’t really complain about supporting his own children. However, the kids are, by defintion, minors, and this support money is given to their mother. That’s the rub. The man divorcing his wife is not exactly fond of handing her money.
Having said that, the Shulchan Aruch – Rema (Even Hoezer 71) I referenced earlier speaks openly about the father who is a deadbeat and doesn’t want to support his own children. This is not new.
Abba:
You wrote: “If it’s the children’s money and she can’t use it on herself then the father should not complain.” Correct. The legislation and the courts are banking on an assumption. It is expected that the expenses of the mother (can include rent, clothing, food, etc.) are enough that the money provided will be used for trhese expenses. If it can be verified that mother used the money for vacations and such luxuries for herself, the fatgher may have grounds to make a case. This is technically possible. But highly unlikely.
“Ujm, will you also sell your underage daughter to whomever you want because you could do so according to halacha?”
There is consistent theme repeated in multiple treads by a small group of posters who seem determined to pontificate on the supremacy of halacha over logic, secular law, common sense and contemporary societal norms.
The generic response typically converges on the counter-question of whether “just because you arguably CAN do something per halacha”, that doesn’t make such actions either obligatory, moral in a larger sense or otherwise reflect on your “power” to harm others. In a world where increasing numbers of frum young women are gaining advanced degrees so they can earn a parnassah for their families and in many cases allow their husband to learn part or full time, it is mindless to keep invoking the notion that all her earnings accrue to the husband absent the conditions noted above regarding a mutual consent for the husband to forego his obligation to support the family etc. (unless of course, your only motive is to see how long it takes for someone to rise to your troll).“determined to pontificate on the supremacy of halacha over logic, secular law, common sense and contemporary societal norms.”
Halacha IS supreme over secular law and your perceptions of common sense and contemporary societal norms that are Kneged Halacha. And there’s nothing more logical than strictly following Halacha.
The little I know- The only way to verify the ex is misusing is by having an audit of children support, which the courts will never allow. Leaving the only other proof having the children starving and dressed in rags, in which case she will probably lose custody.
Divorce is very stressful which can result in hatred and resentment which can transfer to the children. In many cases the children blame the non-custodial parent for all the problems. This can effect how he feels about these children and what relation he will have with them once he no longer needs to pay child supportGadolhadorah, halacha is supreme to secular law. But, as you said, just because someone can do something according to halacha doesn’t mean they should take advantage of that.
Imagine if I as a mother would “take advantage” of the laws of kibud eim and force one of my children to cook, clean the entire house and wash the laundry every day because my daughter would be obligated to do so according to halacha. That is abuse plain and simple.
Now I forgot to add in my previous comment to ujm, that although individuals have “rights” according to halacha, we also have halachic “obligations”, so for example, we cannot cause pain for others. So when people disregard an halachik obligation to take advantage of an halachik right, they will go to gehinom for trampling on halacha, especially if it was bein adom lachveroy.
“And there’s nothing more logical than strictly following Halacha.”
Most people see through you.
You only insist on squarely following halacha when it inconveniences others (ideally women). Otherwise you insist on all sort of lifnum meshuris hadin. For example, do you support people who play music during selichos, although it is undoubtedly is “strictly following halacha” ? Lol of course not THEN you take a “strict” approach and insist on all sorts of chumras.
But when it comes to trapping a woman in a dead marriage, all of a sudden as long as it is within a strict bound of halacha it is ok.
Philospher: Well said. Contrary to the apparent belief of some trollsters, conforming to halacha and being a mentch (even as defined by the social norms of a frum community) are not mutually exclusive. Again, just because you can doesn’t mean you should.
ubiq: Are you really that dense? There’s no Halacha that you must play music during selichos. There IS a Halacha that if a husband doesn’t want to divorce the wife is obligated to continue being his wife.
Ujm
That isn’t the question though.
There is no halacha that if he doesn’t want to divorce her he isn’t allowed to. (That is the discussion)
The question is in a “dead marriage” with no hope for the marriage continuing. If the husband is strictly speaking not required to give a get. Should he give one anyway.
In a previous thread you said no reason to. Here your comments seem to agree with your navul brushes hatorah contention
“There IS a Halacha that if a husband doesn’t want to divorce the wife is obligated to continue being his wife.”
that isnt the topic of conversation though.
The question is: if the marriage is over and he doesn’t want to divorce his wife, should he divorce her.
As phil put it “Can you tell me of what purpose does it do to keep a woman chained who doesn’t want to be married to the likes of you?”I had a rebbe eons ago that said that the Torah contains one more mitzvah that precedes Beraishis. It reads, “Be a mentch.”
The technicalities that one is obligated or not to give a gett remain true. However, trapping someone in a loveless marriage, where their lives are miserable is nothing to brag about, or to claim that one is abiding by halacha. Abusiveness, even without causing bruises or drawing blood, is still disgusting, and violates the “mitzvah” of being a mentch. There are plenty of guidelines in how to behave in relationships that are not spelled out in halacha. And the Torah gives plenty of consideration to values, ethics, and morals. Precisely what halacha is implied in דרכיה דרכי נועם? Our volumes of mussar, authored by the greats of previous generations are not halacha texts per se. But they are filled with the guidance on how to conduct one’s life to be compatible with Torah value. Just because a man can bask in the glow that he is not obligated to give his wife a gett does not make him a tzaddik, or even a nice guy. Quite the contrary.
ubiq: Who said the marriage is over? That point wasn’t specified in the conversation. And more importantly, the marriage is over in whose opinion? Are you asserting that either spouse can unilaterally decide the marriage is over even if the other spouse disagrees? If you’re asserting that, you’re halachicly wrong.
philosopher: Au contraire. You have it backwards. For all of world history until starting around 1960 the entire world instinctively and naturally knew and understood that marriage was mutual, both in establishing marriage and in ending marriage. Just as one person cannot marry another person without that person’s consent, one spouse cannot unilaterally end a marriage without the other spouse’s consent. L’havdil elef havdolos, secular courts, for centuries, often denied one spouse’s request for a divorce if the other spouse contested the request. Even as late as around ten years ago courts in New York sometimes denied requests for a divorce.
And such has always been the Halacha. The Posuk in the Torah clearly says a divorce can only occur if it is the ratzon, will, of the husband. If it isn’t his will then he has no halachic, legal, moral or ethical obligation to divorce simply because his wife wants to divorce. Obviously if the wife has a legitimate provable “cause” where her husband wronged her (i.e. beats her), in a situation that Chazal decreed fits the specific criteria where in such a situation she’s entitled to a divorce, then she can indeed force him through Beis Din to divorce her. But in a case where there was no cause, that meets halachic requirements to mandate a divorce, then she has no right to a divorce.
And if a spouse has no right to a divorce, demanding one doesn’t obligate the other spouse to acquiesce. Halacha describes situations, also, where the husband wants to divorce his wife but he is not permitted to. No one protests against those halachos to demand the husband be granted the unfettered right to divorce his wife, in such situations. Similarly, if the wife has no right to a divorce, if her husband elects to continue maintaining the marriage after declining her request, then al pi halacha she’s required to accept that, and perform her wifely obligations to her husband. And if she still refuses, then it is her who will get gehenim whereas he’ll get gan eden for the suffering she caused him by wrongfully demanding a divorce and then refusing to perform her obligations to him.
Throughout history all this was understood and accepted by Yidden the world over. It was only after the goyish world started “No Fault Divorce”, which was a novel concept 50+ years ago, unprecedented in history, that slowly certain segments of Jews started to have this new gentile idea unfortunately seep into their own hashkofos, despite the halachos to the contrary and despite it never have been Jewish practice, halachic jurisprudence or psak before (or since, for that matter).
Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom took away from Ashkenazic husbands their right to unilaterally divorce their wife. Since Rabbeinu Gershom’s decree, wives have the right to veto her husband’s ability to divorce her. Is anyone alleging that Rabbeinu Gershom created an unfair situation where a husband cannot divorce his wife when he wants to? No, because Rabbeinu Gershom is obviously correct. A husband shouldn’t divorce his wife if she doesn’t want to divorce. Similarly, as per the Torah directly itself, a wife cannot get a divorce if her husband doesn’t want to divorce.
TLIK: If Yirei Shamayim want to completely conform to halacha, they absolutely can do so. We both know how halacha has extremely harsh words and condemnations for those that utilize arkaos, to the point that even if both parties agree to use a secular court instead of Beis Din, it is strictly forbidden. And that it is even forbidden for both parties to agree that Beis Din can utilize non-Jewish laws in their decision rather than straightly follow halacha. Even if both parties agree and would be happy to accept such an arrangement.
In many cases (depending on the state of residence and other factors) the parties could simply not file any court case or otherwise involve the courts. They could separate and mutually agree on the issues without a court order. Even if that isn’t feasible, they could involve the court to the minimal extent possible. Even in New York, they can file an “Uncontested Divorce” agreeing to their own terms for property division and child custody. While you’re correct that NY has legal the Child Support Standards Act, the spouses are legally able to jointly file a “Stipulation Regarding Child Support” that opts out of the state Child Support Guidelines and sets themselves the terms and conditions of the child support.
L’maaisa, there’s no halachic basis to force one spouse to give unfettered unaccountable funds to the other spouse in the name of child support, that many have pointed out is often inappropriately used for other purposes. His obligations to support his children can be met by him directly expending the funds on their behalf without necessarily involving his ex.
Regarding property division, it is well known that halachicly almost all marital assets belong to the husband. There is no reason, rhyme or basis to deviate from halacha in order to achieve the secular non-Jewish ideal of something like a 50/50 split, that has no halachic basis.
On the topic here, regarding electing to decline granting a requested divorce, I’m referring to situations where the husband sincerely desires to continue the marriage and seek Shalom Bayis. (I’m not speaking of a situation of a vendetta.) And in such a scenario, that is where the halacha clearly gives him that fully yashrus, ethical and appropriate right to decide to continue the marriage even though his wife wanted to end it.
ujm
“That point wasn’t specified in the conversation”
It was specified in our previous conversation
and is implicit in this one (when te phrase “being chained” is used that means the marriage is over
“And more importantly, the marriage is over in whose opinion?”
ours. we are the ones discussing thisThough to be fair, in your last point you concede a little bit.
“I’m referring to situations where the husband sincerely desires to continue the marriage and seek Shalom Bayis. (I’m not speaking of a situation of a vendetta.)”kudos.
The only remaining question is if he claims to desire such, but either is lying, or anan sahdi that it is not going to happen) .
(I’m not actually asking this I know your answer)” No, because Rabbeinu Gershom is obviously correct. A husband shouldn’t divorce his wife if she doesn’t want to divorce.”
Are you saying the Torah’s approach has a flaw?
Whether it was implicit in original postings, or simply clarified in later postings, its encouraging to hear that a wife in a demonstrably physically abusive relationship can readily obtain a get from the beis din, notwithstanding here abuser’s objections. Unfortunately, the situation materially changes when the alleged abuse is verbal or emotional and the husband objects. Absent black and blue marks, welts, swollen eyes etc. the victim of non-physical abuse must elicit testimony from third-parties to overcome her abusers objections to offering a get.
“Unfortunately, the situation materially changes when the alleged abuse is verbal or emotional and the husband objects. Absent black and blue marks, welts, swollen eyes etc. the victim of non-physical abuse must elicit testimony from third-parties to overcome her abusers objections to offering a get.”
As I’m sure we all know, many such allegations are nebulous or untruthful, being alleged (and that’s often the keyword) in order to secure unwarranted gain in the legal proceedings. As such, the Shulchan Aruch is very clear that Beis Din cannot accept an unproven claim without witnesses. It isn’t like in goyish courts where they’ll take whatever the (often underqualified, biased or incompetent) judge thinks sounds more “credible”.
There’s good reason why Halacha prohibits Jews from utilizing non-Jewish courts. What is very unfortunate is that the Hamon Hoam sometimes accepts allegations at face value. The Torah doesn’t accept public opinion as a basis for judgement.
“It was specified in our previous conversation”
I’m not sure why you’d think our conversation now is a continuation from another thread seven months ago (or expect me to look it up earlier). Nevertheless, I’m glad the point is now clarified for you.
“The only remaining question is if he claims to desire such, but either is lying, or anan sahdi that it is not going to happen) .”
The Torah and Halacha give him the default right to seek Shalom Bayis. If another party wishes to dispute the veracity of that, they have the burden of proof (that meets halachic requirements) to prove otherwise.
“Are you saying the Torah’s approach has a flaw?”
Why aren’t you asking this question against Rabbeinu Gershom? He made the cherem (that a man is prohibited to divorce his wife if she doesn’t want to be divorced), not me.
“As I’m sure we all know, many such allegations are nebulous or untruthful, being alleged (and that’s often the keyword) in order to secure unwarranted gain in the legal proceedings. ”
See? This is trash talk. No, we don’t “all know” anything of the sort. This is why we complain about your posts. You throw in cheap shots like these which are purely subjective, separate from fact and halacha but show where you stand on woman, marriage and emotional abuse. Then you stuff in a comma and attach it to a halacha and pretend you represent Judaism. And don’t respond with trash about lack of evidence, so many abusers are slick enough to walk free. But reclaiming the point, you throw in your twisted opinions making your personal view obvious, pretend it’s fact, and suddenly play dumb when you are called out.
Ujm:
Perhaps you haven’t encountered this yet. But virtually every Askan, therapist, Dayan, and to’en have. The couple are living a life that is on a crash course, and that all efforts to resolve differences have failed. One or both has made it clear that they will never agree to make changes. A similar scenario is where there has been abuse of whatever variety, and the victim will never be able to feel safe. These marriages are over, and the array of professionals including Rabbonim are certain of that. Now, wife approaches BD, requesting a gett. Husband counters that he wants Shalom Bayis. With all recognition of technical Halacha, what’s correct? Sadly, such situations are not rare. The position asking for Shalom Bayis is just another form of abuse. Trouble is that Halacha is not flouted here to help this woman become an almanah. But all the expletive labels are appropriate for him.
I repeat my earlier quote. לא חרבה ירושלים אלא בגלל שהעמידו דבריהם על דברי תורה. When one exploits Halacha to personal advantage, particularly in the case of cruelty, we have a no goodnik causing churban.
Syag, are you actually denying that there’s a lot of false allegations of abuse in divorce legal proceedings?
“I’m not sure why you’d think our conversation now is a continuation from another thread seven months ago”
I don’t think your views changed. and as I mentioned here your comments fit with
“Why aren’t you asking this question against Rabbeinu Gershom?”
Because I suspect why he did. I don;t have a question for him. If I did of course I’d ask him. He isnt commenting in this thread (As far as I know)
My question is for you.
YOU said
” No, because Rabbeinu Gershom is obviously correct. A husband shouldn’t divorce his wife if she doesn’t want to divorce.””so I am trying to understand YOUR view.
According to the Torah a man can force his wife out if he so pleases, and she has no say.
(correct me if I’m wrong)You said “Rabbeinu Gershom is obviously correct. A husband shouldn’t divorce his wife if she doesn’t want to divorce”
I’m curious how you square these two statements
Are you denying that there are a lot of legitimate claims of abuse?
“Syag, are you actually denying that there’s a lot of false allegations of abuse in divorce legal proceedings?”
Are you denying that theres a lot of true allegations of abuse in divorce legal proceedings?
My question is in THOSE cases. He know the truth. Is he a bad person for keeping her in a chanied marriage. Even if strictly speaking as far as even haezer goes he is not obligated to divorce her?
“Are you denying that there are a lot of legitimate claims of abuse?”
No. My only point is, simply, that to adjudicate the claim (to determine whether the abuse allegation is true or untrue or any other claim) Al Pi Halacha ONLY a Beis Din can make that determination and that it is strictly prohibited to litigate that or any issues in non-Jewish courts or to use secular judges or to utilize any laws other than Torah law.
“My question is in THOSE cases. He know the truth. Is he a bad person for keeping her in a chanied marriage. Even if strictly speaking as far as even haezer goes he is not obligated to divorce her?”
If he abused her of course he’s bad. I’m not sure why you need to even ask. In order to correct his behavior he is required to stop abusing her. The Shulchan Aruch says that if Beis Din ascertains that it was proven the husband was beating his wife the Dayanim are required to order him to stop. And that if it is proven he continued beating her after being warned by Beis Din, the Halacha is the Dayanim can force his to divorce even if he doesn’t want to. That’s the Halacha clearly stated in Shulchan Aruch. If you’re asking regarding a case where he’s beating her (which he obviously knows) but the Beis Din has no proof of it, then of course he’s being bad and is required to stop or agree to divorce (even if Beis Din can’t force him since there’s no proof.)
But if there’s no proof we can’t accept the allegation as true. The Halacha in S”A is clear about that.
DBS: Many prefer an unromantic marriage to divorced life. And/or prefer living full time with their children to seeing them once a week. Or might not have the financial wherewithal or desire to pay for two homes rather than one. There can be many reasons why a person would not want to divorce. Even if their married like isn’t all a bed of roses. Often a difficult married like is better than a difficult divorced life.
“If he abused her of course he’s bad. I’m not sure why you need to even ask”
If your not sure, then you aren’t reading your posts.
“But if there’s no proof we can’t accept the allegation as true. The Halacha in S”A is clear about that.”
Nobody is asking us to accept anything. This isnt a beis din.
The question is if a marriage is over * and a husband forces his wife to remain stuck in the marriage. Is he a jerk?
Note: not is that his halachic right. That isn’t the question.You seem to have come around a bit “If you’re asking regarding a case where he’s beating her (which he obviously knows) but the Beis Din has no proof of it, then of course he’s being bad and is required to stop or agree to divorce (even if Beis Din can’t force him since there’s no proof.)”
Thats great.
Of course there are other forms of abuse as well, besides hitting, as , I assume, you know.*defined any way you want
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.