- This topic has 10 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I recall learning that Jewish divorce law automatically grants an ex-wife alimony payments, from her ex-husband, for the rest of her life until she remarries. This is completely seperate from the one-time payment specified in her Kesuba, due upon divorce. How much does Jewish law specify alimony payments to be and with what frequency?
Also, how much is the standard one-time divorce payment specified in a Kesuba? It is specified in zuz’s (?), how does that translate into dollars?
And if local civil law specifies a different amount of divorce or alimony payment, would it be correct to assume that the amount specified in Jewish Law (whether higher or lower than the civil amount) takes precedence and prevails over the civil law amount?
The above payments I am referring to are completely separate from “child support” payments, and would even be applicable if there were no children born during the marriage.
And, under Jewish divorce law, is it true that it generally awards all marital assets (house, bank accounts, etc.) to the husband?
He keeps the marital assets since they were all his already during the marriage.
If woman instiguated the divorce, she absolutely does not receive Kesuvoh money, and receives nothing.
The kesuba is valued at “200 zuz”. The Chazon Ish says that is 570 grams of silver, or slightly over a pound of silver. Ashkenazic kesubas also add an additional value to the kesuba of “200 zazukim of silver”. The Chazon Ish values this at 127 pounds of silver, while Rav Moshe values this at 100 pounds of silver.
The idea was a monetary value to support a single person for one year. That is the full extent of “alimony”. The amount specified in the kesuba.
And, under Jewish divorce law, is it true that it generally awards all marital assets (house, bank accounts, etc.) to the husband?
Halacha doesn’t recognize marriage as a financial partnership (such a partnership is impossible in a poligamist society) so there is no division of assets when the partnership is dissolved.
poligamist
Oops, I meany polygamous.
These halochos are extremely detailed and complex. I know of a case of a divorce where a man stole money from his X-wife and in-laws because he thought that he was entitled to everything. This led to a din-Torah which determined that he owed his X thousands upon thousands of dollars. Divorce is a great tragedy. Anyone faced with such tragedy would be well-advised to have a Rav who is an expert in these halochos as well as a good lawyer.
Ideally a divorcing couple should get halachic and legal guidance and come to a fair compromise on money and custody issues. Law suits are very expensive and leave everyone wounded.
It is worthwhile pointing out that giving cash payments to an ex-wife for “child support” is a concept stemming from non-Jewish legal systems. Halacha has a vastly different set of obligations for supporting ones child than does the non-Jewish courts. Most of the items and charges secular courts charge a parent to pay for child support, are not legal obligations for a parent to pay for, under halacha. Furthermore, under halacha a parents obligation to support ends when the child reaches his 13th birthday, and according to some shittos, even his 6th birthday.
Of course, the parent ought to feel a basic moral obligation to support his child. But such a moral imperitive is not necessarily legally enforceable under halacha. And such a moral imperitive certainly does not extend to supporting an upper-class lifestyle for the child or ex-spouse. And it also should not be expected to be more than the spouse can afford based on his income level. Even if a secular court orders more support payments than affordable.
So, if an ex-spouse requests or accepts such payments, against halacha, they are essentially engaged in thievery al pi din. Especially if they use any (even a small) portion of such payments for their own benefit rather than their child’s benefit.
The assets that she brought into the marriage go back to her now, as clearly defined in Jewish law.
In practice, the Beis Din always had discretion to do what is necessary based on the situation. Someone who says that such and such happened “always” or “automatically” is ignoring how a Beis Din works. They are dayanim (judges), not clerks.
Judges rule on law, not feelings.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.