Problem of Get on demand and Stealing money through secular courts: Rabbi Chaim Malinowitz

JLaw     Section One

Apart from the bill's flaws with respect to the validity of Gittin, there are three other anti-halachic effects. In the opinion of this writer, these effects are so manifest, so incontrovertible, that it is mystifying that any Orthodox Rabbi, much less any rabbinic institution, can be in favor of it.

I. The first basic flaw in the Get Bill is that it is intended to aid in procuring a Get -- even if there is no reason according to Jewish law to assume a Get to be appropriate.

Halacha does not sanction a Get on demand. True, by biblical law, a man can divorce his wife against her will, without giving any reason whatsoever (although it is "religiously forbidden for him to do so until he has "due cause").⁶ The woman, on the other hand, cannot initiate the act of divorce, although she can claim to have certain specific grounds for a divorce. In other words, she can become the plaintiff in a Din Torah (a legal suit before a Bet Din), claiming that a Get is due her. If she wins her case, the Bet Din will order the husband to give a Get. [...]

Without this halachic process, no one is justified in assuming that a Get is obligatory or even appropriate. Halachically, the marital state cannot be rent asunder on a mere whim, or because of boredom or lack of excitement or inconveniences. Rather, there must be halachic grounds for a Get.[...]

These laws which govern the grounds for a Get are the same as all Torah laws which govern our lives: Just as the laws governing Tzitzit, Tefillin, Shabbat, Lulav and business dealings are those dictated to us by Shulchan Aruch, so, too, are the halachic rules which concern grounds for divorce. Anyone purporting to live a life governed by halacha must orient his/her thinking in this direction. Therefore, action taken by anyone to facilitate a Get for a man/woman if the Get is halachically unjustified, even if that action does not halachically invalidate the Get, is anti-halachic. [This does not refer to friendly persuasion. Surely an outsider, considering it irrational for a spouse to continue a marriage when the other spouse wants a divorce for any reason, would consider it correct to advise a partv to take/receive a Get. But any action beyond such friendly persuasion is morally wrong.]

Lack of appreciation of this basic premise -- that a Get is not to be obtained merely because one wants one - explains much of the erroneous thinking of the proponents of the Get Bill. Nothing in the bill limits its effects to where a competent halachic authority -- a Bet Din -- has found a Get called for. Surprisingly, the proponents of the bill have not felt a need to address this issue, although it seems that it is a call for "Get-on-demand" -- an anti-Halachic statement! (Try to imagine a bill passed in the New York State legislature which mandates that A pay B money, even when their monetary dispute is unresolved -- and A maintains vehemently that he owes no such money!) [...]

III. As we have noted, the prohibition of resorting to the secular courts holds true even if every court action happens to follow all the rules of the Shulchan Aruch. If there are any differences, the additional issue of out-and-out theft arises, if the courts award money or privileges to either party.²¹ (Even in circumstances where one had received permission from a Bet Din to "use the courts" one is prohibited from keeing any monies he is not entitled to according to halacha.)

The Get Bill encourages a woman to use the civil courts to set rates of maintenance and "equitable distribution despite the fact that she might not be entitled to that money according to Jewish law. For example, let us say a woman has no due cause (halachically) for a Get, but has opened a case as the plaintiff in the civil courts for a divorce. Rabbi Akiva Eiger discusses just such a case, and compares this woman to a classic Moredet (a rebellious wife) who is not entitled to receive any support whatsoever. Certainly, too, "equitable distribution" has no halachic equivalent, but is merely the transference of property from one party to the other by state fiat; this money, then, does not belong to the acquiring party al pi din.²⁴ (The chances of "equitable distribution" being covered by the rule of Dina D'malchuta Dina are almost nil. [...]