- This topic has 82 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
If someone is placed in cherem, and his wife is barred from synagogue, and she asks for a get and he refuses, is she an agunah?
Is there some status called “aguna” I am unfamiliar with?
No. Being placed in cherem is not a cause that allows her to be entitled to a get. A wife in not entitled to a get just because she wants one.
She needs a halachic cause to be able to demand a divorce. Nothing in the OP’s description indicates any reason she would be entitled to a divorce, thus she cannot demand one.
And if she leaves, she would be a “moredes”.
Why is the wife barred from synagogue?
An agunah is a woman who has requested a “get” and is being refused.She is trapped!
And why does the OP need to share gritty details in order to be deemed eligible for a “get”?I am sure she has a good reason.
Indeed that is the definition of “aguna”, but I’m not aware being labeled as such carries any legal significance.
That is an incorrect definition. A woman who demands a divorce even though she is not halachicly entitled to one is not an agunah.
The only legal significance is that IF the judge could care less,h/she can apply pressure.
Maus hu alai is a basis for demanding a Get.
The Judge can legally only apply pressure if there is a basis to make the demand. If there is no basis, there is no basis.
Maus hu alai loses the kesubah.
First of all, Helpful, who appointed you the arbiter of what halachically entitles a woman to a divorce? Do you think that it might not be possible that this woman is filled with shame at whatever her husband did to get put in cheirem? Maybe as a result, she feels she can no longer live with him, and does not want her children exposed to his bad middos? You and I do not know the circumstances (and it is not our business), but l’kaf zechus, she may have VERY compelling reasons to want and deserve a Get from him. I would be disgusted with such a man, unless he was totally innocent of any wrongdoing, which is not very likely, as people do not generally put others in cheirem on a whim.
There are halochos as to what is considered a valid reason for demanding a get. Maus alai — she is allowed to say this, but he is allowed to reciprocate by divorcing her without a kesuba.
Technically, an aguna is a woman who’s husband disappeared, NOT one refused a get.
Ok, so we’ve decided that the term “aguna” is not a term of art or legal term, and carries no significance.
Now, what was the OP trying to say?
The OP asked if a husband being placed in cheirim is a valid reason for a wife to demand a get even if her husband doesn’t want to give one. As mdd and others have responded, there are only certain reasons halacha requires a husband to give a get even if he doesn’t want to. In other cases, where halacha doesn’t require an involuntary get, the wife cannot, under halacha, force her husband to give her a get. Since a husband being placed in cheirim is not one of the reasons a wife can demand a get, she is not a “mesorevet get” in that case. (Like hello99 pointed out, the term “agunah” is always incorrect in cases other than when the husband is lost.)
The title of the thread is “Rhetorical aguna question”. A rhetorical question is usually asked to make a point. I have no idea what point the OP is trying to make.
the poster meant “hypothetical”
What makes you think that?
because a seemingly hypothetical question was asked.
the question was in no sense rhetorical and therefore the poster either wasnt thinking tightly when he wrote the subject or doesnt know what rhetorical means
Fair point.
I thought it was rhetorical since the word “aguna” was used, which is an emotionally charged word.
Maybe change the title to “Hypothetical Get Meusah” question.
Then change the question to “If someone is placed in cherem, and his wife is barred from synagogue, and she asks for a get and he refuses, does beis din force him to give a Get?”
“Technically, an aguna is a woman who’s husband disappeared, NOT one refused a get. “
An agunah is any woman who is prevented from remarrying, whether because her husband disappeared deliberately or againt his will, or if he refuses to give her a Get. She is chained to a marriage with no way out. I know a woman whose rabbonim, after unsuccessfully making several attempts to encourage her recalcitrant husband (who was trying to extort money from her family) to give her the Get after many years that they no longer lived together, finally told the husband that unless he gives it to her immediately, they will collectively daven for her to be kosher to marry a kohein on such and such a day the next week. She was called to a Beis Din to receive her Get within 48 hours.
oomis, there is no source for that definition other than your boich teitch. An agunah is a woman who’s husband is lost (i.e. at sea) and his whereabouts unknown. Not one who would like a get but doesn’t get it.
The correct term for a woman who has a halachicly valid reason to demand a get, and based on that a beis din orders the husband to give one and he refuses, is a “mesorevet get” not an agunah.
Isn’t he assur to her during his Cherim? That might be a good enough reason to ask for a Get.
oomis:”An agunah is any woman who is prevented from remarrying, whether because her husband disappeared deliberately or againt his will, or if he refuses to give her a Get”
Such a case is certainly a tragedy, but in the language of Shulchan Aruch is NOT an “aguna”.
I don’t think the term “aguna” is used in a halachic context anywhere.
Reb Moshe told a Rav that being Mattir a woman to her husband is as important as being Mattir Agunos.
Does a Cherem on a man actually ban his wife from Shul?
HaLeivi, what do you mean by mattiring her to her husband? Why was she assur in the first place?
Whatever the technicalities are…in 2010,if a guy refuses to give his wife the “get” she legitimately begs for…she is called an agunah.As far as I know,no one has updated the term to a word more technically correct.(Suggestion: Almanah-WannaBe) I don’t say that to hurt real almanos Chas V’sholom,but to depict the suffering of the trapped victim.
2010, 1910, or 1710 have the same Shulchan Aruch governing our lives and laws, rather than feel goodism and modern sensibilities, when a get is or is not in order.
Such a case is certainly a tragedy, but in the language of Shulchan Aruch is NOT an “aguna”. “
It most certainly is today. It means any woman who is not free to re-marry. Most commonly it was that men went off to war or merchant vessels, and were missing in action or lost at sea, but with no body recovered, thus rendering it assur for them to re-marry. Their wives were known as agunos. But it has come to also mean ANY woman who cannot halachically remarry.
Clearly they would be without standing to demand that only part of the divorce process, i.e. the issuing of the Bill of Divorce (i.e. “get”), be provided to them under Jewish law, but that the other aspects of the divorce (i.e. assets and custody) be governed under non-Jewish law (i.e. secular law.)
So right…I was responding to those who say an agunah can only mean one thing.Today,it means more,that’s all.As far as your post,can you clarify exactly what you mean?
So right, as usual, you are so wrong. Many rabbonim who deal with these women call them agunos.
The truth is, title is not as important as freeing these women.
An important notice: there is no divorce on demand in Judaism. Sometimes a woman is entitled to demand a get, and sometimes she is not. In the latter case, she has to learn how to subdue her wishes and accept what the Halocha says.
Divorce on demand??
I have zero mechila for every single person who forced me to stay married to my ex and allowed him to stay and torture me all those extra years…You sound like one of those characters…
Nothing personal,mdd.You just hit a sore spot.Don’t attack me,please.
Mdd, is absoultely 100% correct. And in mdd’s latter case one is not an “agunah” simply because she demands an unwarranted divorce and is halachicly refused one.
mdd, the entitlement that you are refering to is about getting a Kesuba for her Get.
And a woman stuck in a marriage like that should use every legal avenue to put the screws to her husband.
mdd’s point is a wife cannot wake up one morning and decide marriage is boring and she’d prefer to be single again, and thus demand a divorce. Beis Din will rightfully laugh her out of court and order her to return to her husband, and if she refuses deem her a “moredes”.
And how many women just wake up one day and go “I’m so bored…what can I do??? I know. I’ll get a divorced.” Usually dissatisfaction with the marriage has been growing for sometime.
The beit din is unlikely to just order her back to her husband, unless the beit din actually doesn’t care about a stable marriage.
I’m talking about a Moredess. She gets a Get, just not a Kesuba.
Haleivi:I was not a moredes…and was encouraged to be moichel the kesubah. Just take the “get” ’cause he’s finally giving it type of thing.
Ladies, there is such a thing as dinei Torah!Sometimes, the din is that she has to stay married.Period.
mdd, what you say is Torah true, although unpopular amongst those infected with feminist thought.
Feminist??
Ok,this thread is giving me a headache…
I wish you all well,but (sigh) a lot of you have NO IDEA what is really taking place out there….
And what Torah-abiding(?) men are doing to Torah-true women…in court,in bais din…I’d write a book but it’s all Chilul Hashem.
Let me put it this way: in Jewsih law, the only way to break a marriage is for the man to give a get. There are exceptions to this, but this is the general rule.
eclipse:
“I have zero mechila for every single person who forced me to stay married to my ex and allowed him to stay and torture me all those extra years…”
First of all, I am truly sorry that you had to go through a (by the sound of it) messy divorce.
That said, nobody needs to actively force a woman to stay married; by default, she is stuck where she is. Therefore, these people didn’t actively force you to stay married; they just passively did not break the marriage.
“And what Torah-abiding(?) men are doing to Torah-true women…in court,in bais din…I’d write a book but it’s all Chilul Hashem.”
Two wrongs don’t make a right. The halacha is what the halacha is, whether or not you like its messengers.
HindaRochel:
“The beit din is unlikely to just order her back to her husband, unless the beit din actually doesn’t care about a stable marriage.”
The question is not if the marriage is stable; the question is if the marriage is still applicable. Whether or not a marriage is in the best shape has no difference on its halcachic status. If the woman would go “marry” (for lack of a better term) somebody else, she would still be chayiv skliah, and her children would still be mamzeirim. She is still married, whether she likes it or not.
Okay,mw13.
1.”default”is not the right word here.If a woman is crying and begging rabbonim to make her abusive husband LEAVE THE HOME,and he refuses adamantly,and they allow him to stay while the crisis continues to escalate….it is not by “default”that she is trapped but by “de FAULT oF” the powers-that-be who refuse to believe her.
2.And how could you possibly think i meant that those following halacha caused a Chilul Hashem?!Quite the contrary.I can’t even read Parshas Mishpotim without cringing at how many d’oraysahs have been ignored.It is the ABSENCE OF HALACHA which has caused so much Chilul Hashem.
I truly believe that the Torah is “d’roche’ha darche noam”.
Now unless you know my story personally(which you clearly do not),may I ask how you became so aware of exactly what happened?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.