Sorry, somehow I completely skipped over that and read it as “mishnah”, which doesn’t even have the same number of letters. I still think the same issue applies, as the number 613 is a rabbinic invention and so is developing/“deducing” the correct number of laws to fit.
If the marriage is governed by Jewish law, then the parties should abide by Jewish law. I don’t think that’s particularly complicated. Women who don’t want to have to worry about getting a get (so to speak) shouldn’t have Jewish marriages.
The woman argued, and I agree, that the assurance of a get was included in her marriage contract. That’s like saying “women who don’t want to worry about getting a divorce shouldn’t get married at all, even with a pre-nup”.
Except that her marriage contract was subject to Jewish law, and that (as far as I am aware) the husband has sole authority over whether to grant the get.
I am hardly an expert on Jewish law, so feel free to correct me.
It’s Brickrolling. Easiest thing to do if you see such an OP (one with a fairly obvious answer that seems to be a trick question) is ignore the thread for half a day until you can read the OP then quickly skim down to find the reveal. Generally interesting threads, but you have to wait for the gotcha ya bit to see what’s actually under discussion.
…
As to the OP, courts enforce private contracts all the time. They are often called on to interpret language and provisions in dispute, hearing from witnesses as to the normal or intended meaning of the language. But if it’s a matter of religious practice or tradition, then the court’s enforcing of one view over others reinforces the strength of that line of thought’s import over others. Whether or not a state appellate court has already ruled on this, I’d be wary of relying on it as precedent, and if it made it to the SCOTUS would bet against it.
As a factual matter, I don’t even agree that the assurance of a get in the case of a civil divorce is included in the ketubah. What is included is the expectation that the husband will be legitimately subject to a great deal of pressure to grant it.
Which is, of course, precisely what happened here, so this may seem a fine distinction to draw. But if I cannot rely on a pilpul in a discussion of Jewish law, then where can I?
So here it is: there is a difference between the kinds of pressure a Beth Din may apply and the kinds of pressure a civil court may apply, at least in this country. Of course, in an area governed by rabbinic law, the beth Din COULD apply that great pressure, so perhaps it’s the same meaning after all.
I actually know an ultra Orthodox couple that this happened to. The wife wanted a divorce. The husband absolutely refused to comply.
The wife appealed to her Orthodox community and the entire community came crashing down on him, forcing him to give her a get.
So problem solved, outside the confines of the secular law.
And in answer to your question, no the court system should not interfere. They can get legally divorced but not divorced in the eyes of Judaism? Not the court’s problem.
That only applies if there is conflict within the religion regarding a particular law.
ETA: that was a response to RDL’s post.
OR you can travel elsewhere and it will be recognized by the State. There was some hooplah a few years ago where the <crap the name escapes me> tried to make a case that all non-sanctioned marriages were invalid, but that didn’t hold very long.
A ketubah is a contract and a get is an amendment to it. To not sign a *get *would unfairly hold a woman to a contract while breaking said contract. If you really wanted the legal Talmudic go-around, then not granting a get for arbitrary reasons invalidates the entire marriage process anyway.
A get prohibits a divorced woman from committing adultery. (Marry, divorce, marry another = adultery)
If she does, she is not only an adulteress, but all future children are bastards. It doesn’t sound like a big deal, but if you are Orthodox and shunned from your community, it’s…it’s like being exiled for treason.
While a woman cannot “serve” a man with a divorce, she can petition the Rabbinical court to pursue one on her behalf. Men are required to provide certain things for a wife (sex is actually one of them) and conduct himself in a certain manner. Failure to adhere to the tenants of Judaism is grounds for a get, even if it wasn’t explicitly outlined in the ketbuah.
Some aspects of Orthodox Judaism sound awfully misogynist. While that may be true, women are also exempt from several commandments because of their dependent status (and responsibilities) in a marriage. In Israel, that get business can get awfully dirty, and it’s not just women who get jilted. A marriage (and divorce) is between a man and a woman, not between a rabbi and a couple.
In American orthodoxy, if a woman gets a civil divorce, she will almost always be given a get. The law of the land would trump over the law of the Talmud in this case, but she’s still subject to the ramifications if the guy refuses. I wonder what happens if there is no rabbinical court around? Do you travel to the nearest one? Pshaw! Anyway, since a man can ransom children/support/conditions in return for a get, I can see why courts may intervene.
There was a case in NY years and years ago about this guy who had to pay his ex wife a crap ton of money for not signing a *get. *Ha. ha
also, it is very very very hard for a man to divorce his wife without her consent.
Dina de-malkhuta dina.
But that’s NOT the Talmudic position. A Beth Din may order a man to grant the get, and apply all sorts of pressure to him to do it, but they cannot just do it on his behalf.
Presumably, when physical force is used to persuade a man to grant a get, by the community, then the civil [ criminal ] law intervenes.
Where does it say that a groom is coughing up his posessions? Huh?
Please read what I wrote.
I did not say the court would do it on his behalf. I said they would petition on HER behalf. If he doesn’t comply, he’s going to be frowned upon and possibly worse.
If a man doesn’t grant a woman a get, he’s holding her hostage…which kind of invalidates the original marriage contract anyway. It doesn’t actually happen, but it proves a pretty good point. The rabinnical authority put plenty of rules in place to make sure that he can’t divorce her on a whim OR bully her by holding the get over her head.
btw, Jews have the lowest divorce rates. 
OK. Which responsa, or which commentator, says that a man’s refusal to grant a get invalidates the contract? Teshuvot ha-Ge’onim? Perhaps the Rashbam? A number I perhaps missed in the Teshuvot Ba’alei ha-Tosafot? Asher b. Jehiel or Maimonides said this? It came maybe from the Vilna Gaon?
Because “pretty much” invalidates the contract seems to be missing a pretty crucial claim that it actually invalidates the contract. And so far as I can tell, none of the commentaries actually make this latter claim.
There are various rabbinical opinions that state a man who forces his wife to stay married is violating the original contract because she does not give consent (amongst other things). These opinions draw from sources in the Talmud and tenackh. However, if such a ruling were actually put into place, then all children from that marriage would be declared mazmar. Problematic. A few thousand years go, someone’s big brothers could take care of the situation…not so much now. I am certain that thousands of responsa have been written on this. Just because one does a wrong does not mean the offended party always sees justice, hence my “pretty much” comment.
Forcing a woman to stay in a relationship by coercion (which is what can happen) is a troubled way of condoning kidnapping, rape, and abuse. A man who would do this raises the possibility that he may never have intended to honor the marriage in the first place.
I would like to see these rules change. Halacha draws an ananagh. The inverse is also true. There’s also such a thing as post-Talmudic law - and the latter cannot exist without the former. Unfortunately, change in marriage law is a long time out (if it even happens) since the Jewish people are so widespread and diverse. It would require a worldwide cooperation. I think our best bet is hoping the Israeli Rabbinate moves in this direction and others follow.
The rabbinical authorities have put so many rules in place to protect the original contract of marriage. You know that rabbis continuously draw on liturgical sources and history to answer ethical and religious dilemmas. If they didn’t, there would be no point of a Bet Din or a rabbi in the first place. Who wants to belong to a religion in which they can’t ask questions? Since you and I both know that Jewish law isn’t dead (nor is it one size fits all authority - just look at a Passover seder in Yemen compared to one in New York) I can only conclude that you’re trying to start something.
Knowing Bricker, I don’t think he is - he’s basically asking for a specific quote. As a lawyer, he’s used to being able to pick and choose quotes for and against any side depending on which one is paying him - he likes having both lists handy. So, having a specific responsa he can read would please him. Asking “Which responsa?” is just the more-specific to the case version of the Dope’s generic “Cite?”
I’m not trying to start anything. I’m trying to get you to substantiate your point with citation to some relevant authority besides your own post.
I’m asking you speficially where you find that failing to give a get constitutes an invalidation of the marriage contract, or where a beit din can directly perform the action absent the husband’s assent.
Here’s an example: I might claim that if a father refuses to circumcise his son, then the biet din will do it. If challenged on that claim, I would reply as follows:
We know that a father’s duty includes berit mila for his son, right? Bereishit 21:4 – “And Avraham circumcised his son Yitzchak.”
But we also know that if this is not done by the father, it must be done by the Beit din, the rabbinical court: Bereishit 17:10 – “You shall circumcise for yourselves every male.”
So we see from this that there are some duties which, if not done by the person who owes the duty, may be done directly by the Beit din in his stead, and the rabbis deduced this from the pesukimp in which G-d reveals to Avraham the mitzvah of berit mila.
Now, do you have a similar argument in support of your point, or are you contending that the posts of CitizenPained should be taken with more authority even than those of the Vilna Gaon? At least he cited his Torah; you apparently don’t need to do even that.
This isn’t really related to what a beit din might do or not do, but have you ever read the Canadian Supreme Court case Bruker v Markovitz? Of course, that’s a case where the civil divorce decree specifically included an agreement to immediately seek a get.
Also, there’s the New York case Avitzur v Avitzur. From an outline of the facts:
The Rambam does allow for a man who refuses to grant a get to be beaten until he consents, I think. But that’s different than the beit din unilaterally issuing a get.