Get Refusal

Only after a bona fide Beis Din held a trial with both the husband and wife present in the courtroom (as halachicly no Beis Din trial can be held without the presence of both parties to the dispute). And after having completed said trial, a majority of the three Dayanim ruled l’halacha that the husband is obligated to give a Get even if he wishes not to.

Note that normatively, by default, the halacha is that he does not have to give a Get if he doesn’t want to give it. There are only rare halachic circumstances which is deemed under halacha as valid “cause” obligating him to give it against his will.

If all the above conditions have been met and proven in Beis Din, and the Dayanim so rule, and he yet refuses to give it after being ordered to do so by the Beis Din, then and only then is he a halachic get refuser.

Also note that if one of the parties to the dispute refuses to show up in Beis Din, that party is in contempt of Beis Din (with the requisite negative consequences of being in contempt.) Nevertheless, at that stage the party isn’t obligated to give a Get since the Beis Din trial to judge whether a halachic obligation to give it exists — or not — hasn’t yet occurred.

Be very careful before you get caught up in get stories. Two that I know of personally: one of my friends was divorcing a woman who was not quite honest in money. The court ordered that the get be given right after the finances were settled as in distributed not agreed upon.. she decided through her lawyer that the guests should be given 30 days before that and when he disagreed she went around to all the rabbis in the community saying that he was refusing and each one called him in to yell at him.

Next friend divorcing a former friend who’s family was not playing Fair at all wrote a get very early on and the lawyer sent the bais din a letter saying that she refused to accept it. This went on for a year while he was looked at as being a refuser.

ujm: what if the husband refuses to go to beis din? because that is what happens in 99% of aguna cases. then how long after he refuses to go to beis din is he considered a “get refuser?” or he plays the system by agreeing to one beis din and then setting a trial date and then not showing up and arguing that he wants a different beis din (which is not even permitted by halacha). what then?

You gave a very nice halachic explanation but it is not very practical.

Stay -“Next friend divorcing a former friend who’s family was not playing Fair at all wrote a get very early on and the lawyer sent the bais din a letter saying that she refused to accept it. This went on for a year while he was looked at as being a refuser”

I’m divorced. First thing, if you could work out the marriage – it’s a thousand percent better than getting divorced!

When you actually are getting divorced, you must be Smart about it.
I really can’t comment on your case, because I don’t know the details.
But, it seems that won’t Stop all the Posters from commenting!
But I will comment on this line -“wrote a get very early on”.
In general, it’s not a good idea to Run to give a Get.
The man has to access whether it will be accepted.
Once you see that it will be accepted, then by all means give it!
I actually waited a few years before attempting to give it.
B’H it worked out!

@NOYB I agree that this has the potential for disaster especially if these rallies are solely based on a viral Instagram post. But if a well respected Rav/Bais Din confirms that the guy is wrong then I think public shaming is the perfect solution to this problem. More shuls should actively bar these men from participating in the kehilla, immense pressure should be put on family members who are aiding and abetting his behavior and they should be shunned from polite society. The real issue is determining the legitimacy of a woman’s claim, a strong central well respected bais din (something this country lacks) would solve this.

Agreed , it needs to be done under rabbinical guidance , just like every other thing we do. Note that many of the recent cases were long standing get refusers- including one who had already remarried. The mob cannot decide who to protest.
These men were not trying to resolve the situation. They were simply looking to hurt their exes or extort them. Every situation is unique. Sometimes the woman is to blame as well.

“But he doesn’t have an obligation to give a Get”

I think a point that gets blurred in these conversations , is although he doesn’t have a halachic obligation, he may have a moral one.

If the marriage is over, certainly if he has moved on and remarried a get should be given in (nearly?) all circumstances.
Is that really a controversial statement?

Now granted, he may not be strictly speaking obligated to do so, and pressuring him to do so unwillingly may create a real problem of Get meusah. But that doesn’t change the fact that he is a bad person, who deserves shame .

Imagine a person who literally kept his wife chained in his basement, didn’t let her get out and get sunlight. All would agree that would be crazy, and would support shaming him to free her, even without beis din demanding him to (again a big difference is him freeing her wouldn’t create get meuseh in this scenario) Keeping a woman chained in a dead marriage is not much different than keeping her chained in a basement.

Again, yes we don’t know the facts in all cases, and mob rule can lead to real problems as NOYB pointed out . But in regards to ” can anyone possibly think of a worse thing to encourage than “hey random people, form a mob and go ruin someone’s life based on hearsay”?” Yes I think keeping women stuck in a marriage that is over might be worse, and is definitely more common .

It seems to me that in response to the “feminist bent” (real or perceived) , and perhaps anti-halachic outlook and even practices done by many in a desire to free these women, many in our camp come to view all these Get refusers as tzadikim except in a narrow subset of cases.

I guess my question really is the following
If the marriage is over, certainly if he has moved on and remarried a get SHOULD* be given in (nearly?) all circumstances.

(*note should does not equal halachically obligated vis a vis hilchos Gittin in this sentence )

ubiquitin: I think a point that gets blurred in these conversations , is although he doesn’t have a halachic obligation, he may have a moral one.

Your morals or the other fellow’s morals? Who is deciding what is moral? And to further expand on your comment, see my additional points below, in this reply.

If the marriage is over, certainly if he has moved on and remarried a get should be given in (nearly?) all circumstances.

Who decided that the marriage is “over”? If they mutually agree that the marriage is over, then normally your point is correct. A Get must be granted (by him) and accepted (by her.) That would, indeed, be the case in the majority of cases where they both agree the marriage is over.

But there are even exceptions to that. To take an example, if one of the parties halachicly wronged the other party, and that wrong still hasn’t been corrected by the party who committed the wrong, it might be halachicly correct to not yet proceed with the Get. Rav Moshe Shternbuch shlit”a (and possibly Rav Elyashiv zt’l, as well) have teshuvos, for example, where if the wife went to non-Jewish court (arkaos) for marital assets distribution or for custody, in contravention with halacha prohibiting arkaos, and received things that are halachicly unentitled to, not only can he withhold a Get until she undoes what she received and wholly rectifies him for his loss, but he can even remarry while she’s still in breach of halacha. (He even debates whether he can remarry without a heter meah rabbonim; he concludes m’ikur hadin he could but it is proper for him to first receive the heter.)

But suppose another example where one spouse thinks it’s over whereas the other spouse still insists on restoring shalom bayis, we can’t tell the one asking for shalom bayis that it is “over”.

Now granted, he may not be strictly speaking obligated to do so, and pressuring him to do so unwillingly may create a real problem of Get meusah. But that doesn’t change the fact that he is a bad person, who deserves shame.

Now this point I must take strong exception to. If strictly speaking he’s not halachicly obligated to divorce, as you give in your example, then generally speaking he has no moral, ethical or other imperative to do so even if she wants to divorce. Halacha is replete with examples (check the Gemora as well as Shulchan Aruch) of when one spouse asks for a divorce, when the other spouse desires to continue the marriage, where we deny the request for a divorce. The more frequent examples are when the wife wants to divorce but there’s at least one circumstance that comes to mind where if the husband wants to divorce, but the wife doesn’t want to divorce, where we don’t let him divorce her. (This example I’m thinking of is m’ikur hadin m’doraysa, applicable to all Jews not just to Ashkenazim who have Rabbeinu Gershom.)

Ashkenazim have the Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom which prohibits a husband from divorcing his wife even if he wants to, if she does not want to. But all Jews m’doraysa have the reverse example of when the husband doesn’t want to divorce then he does not have to divorce and has the right to choose to continue the marriage. And he may even summon his wife to beis din to enforce her obligations to him as his wife, if she isn’t performing them. The fact that Rabbeinu Gershom extended further where we can deny a request for divorce, in more cases than what are covered m’doraysa, demonstrates clearly that denying a divorce request is often proper.

My underlying point is that this newfangled idea that if one spouse wants to divorce when the other does not, then the one wanting it generally has the right to it over the objections of the other spouse, is wrongheaded and has no basis in halacha. (L’havdil, even among the non-Jews, until fairly recently, courts would routinely deny petitions for divorce if the court believed divorcing was unwarranted despite one spouse requesting it.) Of course, when there’s “cause”, i.e. a spouse is actively committing physical abuse, etc., where halacha states is a valid reason to grant a divorce against the will of the declining spouse, such exceptions are recognized as valid basis’ to grant it even against his will. But those are exceptions, not the rule.

Where one spouse tells the beis din that he/she wants to reconcile.

Hmm. That occurs in a rather huge percentage of cases, and this is an entirely different discussion. I have observed this happening many, many times. On occasion, there was rationale to this. There had been minimal to no effort at getting help. The basis for seeking to end the marriage was flimsy, or based on external forces rather than discord between them. Other times, the “defendant” or “nitvah” was fearful of the consequences of life after divorce.

The response of “But I want shalom bayis” is a well recognized tactic of delay. Many of these cases have rather good reason to end a marriage (not talking about halachic reasons), and remaining in the marriage by not granting or being willing to receive a get only throws wrenches into the mechanism. Dayanim see this regularly. Whoever does this is certainly being “not nice”. And I dare to suggest that only a limited percentage of these cases have a legitimate basis to stop the get process and redirect to professional help.

“If they mutually agree that the marriage is over, then normally your point is correct”

Fantastic then we are in full agreement.

Though this part throws me off and seems to contradict the first point

“Now this point I must take strong exception to. If strictly speaking he’s not halachicly obligated to divorce, as you give in your example, then generally speaking he has no moral, ethical or other imperative to do so even if she wants to divorce.”

To clarify what I meant. I am talking about a case whre the marriage is over. You ask who decides? Whoever you want. I’m not talking about a specific case strictly in the abstract.

If the marriage is over and there a get should be given (barring some exceptional cases)

“My underlying point is that this newfangled idea that if one spouse wants to divorce when the other does not, then the one wanting it generally has the right to it over the objections of the other spouse, is wrongheaded and has no basis in halacha.”

Yes I get that.

My underlying point is that there are other aspects to halacha. You mean in hilchos Gitin there is no basis. There are other halachos Veasisa Hayashr Vehatov is important too.

I don’t intend on this turning into one of my endless debates.

ALL I am saying is that aside for Hilchos Gitin, aa person should be a mentch.
If the marriage is over, (however and whomever you would have define it) to be a mencth a get should be given

ubiquitin: Fantastic then we are in full agreement.

Though this part throws me off and seems to contradict the first point…

Permit me, please, to explain the difference between the two cases. In the former case he acknowledges the marriage is over. That effectively means he has no intentions of fulfilling his halachic obligations as her husband. That creates a halachic obligation upon him to divorce. Since if he’s unwilling to carry out his martial obligations to his wife he’s halachicly obligated to accede to her request for a divorce.

OTOH, in the latter case, where he wishes to reestablish shalom bayis, he has no halachic obligation to grant her request for a Get. Barring extenuating rare circumstances that Halacha declares gives her a right to a Get, he has the right to choose to continue the marriage, despite her desire to end it, and furthermore can even take his wife to Beis Din to demand she continue fulfilling her wifely obligations to him.

You said we’re in full agreement. I think I’m just highlighting that Veasisa Hayashr Vehatov can mean a spouse should continue in marriage and fulfill their martial obligations even if they want out. Rather than assuming it means the spouse who wants to continue the marriage should throw in the towel against their will. So, perhaps, though we agree with each other on this discussion, we are each highlighting different aspects of Halacha.

Thank you for having this discussion.

In most cases of get refusal, the Beis Din has already issued a siruv and cherem against the husband. Then it’s perfectly justified to call the man a rasha and protest at his house or whatever. In the small cases where Beis Din did not pasken against the husband, those have to be taken on a case-by-case basis before forming a lynch mob.

In most cases the Beis Din has not issued anything. In the cases where they did issued a siruv, and those cases are about 50/50% whether it was issued against the husband or against the wife, the siruv is *only* that the defendant show up to Beis Din in order to have a trial as to whether or not a Get is required to be given. It is not a siruv that a Get must be given, other than in rare cases.

“In the small cases where Beis Din did not pasken against the husband, those have to be taken on a case-by-case basis before forming a lynch mob.”

In cases where there’s no siruv it is absolutely forbidden to take sides or to pressure anyone to do anything.

Yseribus: “A Get refuser without a Siruv” is the same oxymoron as “A business that makes nothing but money is a poor business.” Or an honest thief.

ubiquitin: What I posted certainly is correct. Let’s walk though this with examples. Suppose Dina asks Reuven for a Get. And Reuven says no, I love you Dina and wish to remain married to you. So Dina summons Reuven to Beis Din and demands a divorce. A trial is held and the Dayanim rule that al pi Halacha no divorce is entitled and that the marriage should continue. Dina now publicly calls herself an “aguna” and still demands a Get.

Bein Adom Lchaveiro in the above case is the same as Even Haezer. Dina should try her best to put on a smile and tell Reuven that she’s willing to continue the marriage. That would be her Bein Adom Lchaveiro obligation.

Example 2: Same as above but it didn’t yet get to the point of a Beis Din trial. Reuven has no Bein Adom Lchaveiro obligation to give a Get.

“You left out a lot of details. Is Dina crying herself to sleep everynight? miserable?… Are you really saying him forcing (no quotes that is what he is doing) her to stay married is a nice thing to do?”

I specifically said “A trial is held and the Dayanim rule that al pi Halacha no divorce is entitled and that the marriage should continue.” That effectively answers/addresses those questions.

“That may very well be, but that wasnt the discussion. what of HIS Bein Adom Lchaveiro obligation THAT is the question”

If you agree that her Bein Adom Lchaveiro obligation is to tell Reuven that she’s willing to continue the marriage then obviously he doesn’t have the contradictory obligation to give her a Get.

“see Shulchan Aruch 154 few of those cases are grounds to force him to divorce.”

Right. If a case occurred that Shulchan Aruch paskens that he doesn’t have to agree to her request for a divorce, then that’s the Halacha. The request for divorce is rightfully, under explicit Halacha, denied. And Beis Din denies the request after the husband and wife litigate it at trial with the Dayanim.

“LEts say the beis din got it wrong. Reuvein knows the truth.”

If you’re suggesting Reuven lied to Beis Din, which is not the case I presented, then of course he’s done very wrong right there. But lmaaisa in the real world we accept the psak of Beis Din as the binding decision.

“Bein adom lechaveiro often goes two ways”

How’s it possible that her Bein adom lechaveiro is to agree to continue the marriage while at the same time his Bein adom lechaveiro is to give a Get??

“There are many cases where A Rav will encourage someone to give a Get where there is no hope of reconciliation, although m’ikar hadin he isnt obligated too and he is hoping things will change.”

If the rabbi thinks there’s no hope but the husband disagrees and believes that there is hope for reconciliation, since we’re discussing a case where mikur hadin he’s within his halachic right to continue the marriage, if he exercises that right then he’s good. Ultimately in such a case Halacha gives him the call on continuing to hold out for shalom bayis.

“All I am saying is causing tzar to another person by forcing her to remain in a marriage that has no hope of reconciliation, is a wrong thing to do.”

Divorce may cause him a greater tzar than not divorcing causes her tzar. I would present it the other way — causing tzar to another person by forcing him to divorce is a wrong thing to do.

ubiquitin: If he has remarried that would almost surely indicate that the (first) marriage is over and your conclusion is correct that he must give a Get. (I say almost because non-Ashkenazim may be different in this regard.)

But if he hasn’t remarried then I’m not clear what criteria or yardstick you’re using to classify that “the marriage is over”. It ain’t over until the fat lady sings; he still maintains the halachic right to challenge her request for a Get. And unless a Beis Din, after conducting a trial with the parties in attendance, rules that the specifics of the case fall into a halachic category where he must give a Get even if he doesn’t wish to (which is a rare scenario under Halacha), then the marriage isn’t over.

“Even if no beis din has so required?”

I don’t think he has any leg to stand on to say otherwise. Technically he’s within his (legal and moral) right to dispute in Beis Din his having to give it. But since he remarried and abandoned his first marriage I think it’s obvious Beis Din will require he give it. (Although, depending on the circumstances, it’s possible they’ll delay its giving until all other outstanding unresolved marital disputes are first settled.) So he legally is within his rights to first have a trial to determine his obligation to give it. But based on the circumstances described (essentially of him refusing to perform his marital obligations to his wife) I think any Beis Din will rule he must give it.