Author Topic: Rabbinic Court Annuls 20 year Marriage: Witnesses not Shabbat Observers  (Read 3062 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline edu

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1866
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/us-news/rabbinic-court-annuls-20-year-marriage-witnesses-not-sabbath-observers/2012/05/18/
According to the link, when a husband who abandoned his wife and moved to Florida and remarried there, refused to grant his wife a "Get" (divorce document)
Quote
the Chief Judge of the Jerusalem Rabbinical Court Rabbi Eliyahu Abergel freed a woman from her aguna status (separated from her husband but unable to marry another) and annulled her marriage, because the witnesses who signed the ketubah were not Shabbat observers.
What do you think? Is this good or bad for the observance of Torah?

Offline muman613

  • Platinum JTF Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 29958
  • All souls praise Hashem, Hallelukah!
    • muman613 Torah Wisdom
I guess a lot of women could annul their marriages if they wanted to using this precedent.

I don't know yet if it is good or bad.
You shall make yourself the Festival of Sukkoth for seven days, when you gather in [the produce] from your threshing floor and your vat.And you shall rejoice in your Festival-you, and your son, and your daughter, and your manservant, and your maidservant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the orphan, and the widow, who are within your cities
Duet 16:13-14

Offline Tag-MehirTzedek

  • Silver Star JTF Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 5462
I heard things similar before. The logic in this case goes that since the witnesses were not Shomer shabbath their testimony is not valid, therefore they were never properly married. They lived as boy-friend girl-friend.

"I guess a lot of women could annul their marriages if they wanted to using this precedent"

 Not necessarily. In almost all marriages (now at least) their are 2 Shomer Shabbath non-related witnesses. 1 the Rabbi and someone trustworthy that he brings.

 - Also I have a question on this since the get and witnesses is one of the ways of being married. What abotu the night of the weeding where they were together with the intention of being married. Also other things, but I don't know the complexities of these things. I would say the easiest thing to do would be to just beat up the guy and get him to give the get. Or "Get him".
.   ד  עֹזְבֵי תוֹרָה, יְהַלְלוּ רָשָׁע;    וְשֹׁמְרֵי תוֹרָה, יִתְגָּרוּ בָם
4 They that forsake the law praise the wicked; but such as keep the law contend with them.

ה  אַנְשֵׁי-רָע, לֹא-יָבִינוּ מִשְׁפָּט;    וּמְבַקְשֵׁי יְהוָה, יָבִינוּ כֹל.   
5 Evil men understand not justice; but they that seek the LORD understand all things.

Offline Zelhar

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10689
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/us-news/rabbinic-court-annuls-20-year-marriage-witnesses-not-sabbath-observers/2012/05/18/
According to the link, when a husband who abandoned his wife and moved to Florida and remarried there, refused to grant his wife a "Get" (divorce document) What do you think? Is this good or bad for the observance of Torah?
Yes. This is a case of a man who deliberately refuses to give his ex spouse a divorce, making it impossible for her to continue with her life and remarry. Every effort must be made to end the marriage in such case.

Offline muman613

  • Platinum JTF Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 29958
  • All souls praise Hashem, Hallelukah!
    • muman613 Torah Wisdom
Here is a good explanation from Chabad on the problem of Agunah:


http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/613084/jewish/The-Agunah.htm

Historical Overview of the Agunah Issue

Agunah means "anchored," or "chained." An agunah is a married woman who is not living with her husband, but has not been released from the bonds of matrimony. Though she wishes to put her marriage behind her, she is not free to remarry. She is chained to an unwanted marriage.

According to halachah, a woman may not remarry unless there is clear evidence that her husband had died or halachically divorced her with a get document. In times past, most agunot (pl. form of agunah) were victims of vanishing husbands. Traveling businessmen were often killed by bandits, who would dispose of the body leaving behind no trace of evidence. Or, a traveler would die in a remote location, and due to the lack of communication technology, or proper identification on the husband's person, the wife would remain uniformed. Frequent pogroms and wars habitually left agunot in their wake. Before recent times it was also fairly easy for an individual who had fallen upon hard times – or was unhappy with his current job, lifestyle, marriage, reputation, etc. – to simply vanish in the night and resurface in another city or country and start anew, unencumbered by previous obligations—including marital ones.1

The "agunah problem" was always one of the greatest challenges facing halachic authorities. The sages of the Talmud,2 recognizing the tremendous personal tragedy of the agunah, instituted various halachic leniencies intended to decrease the incidence of women in this woeful state.3 In biblical times, soldiers who were dispatched to the battlefield were required to first deliver a divorce to their wives,4 allowing the wives to remarry in the event that the husbands did not return.5 Halachic literature of the last millennium is dominated by "agunah responsa," penned by halachic authorities in response to inquiries from agunot who presented (sometimes flimsy) evidence of their husband's demise, and now wished rabbinical authorization to remarry. A precursory glance at these responsa reveals how these rabbis went to great lengths to find halachic precedent to declare these women widows.6

The Modern-Day Agunah

Today the world is "smaller," and it is it is very uncommon for people to simply vanish. Nevertheless, the agunah problem persists, primarily due to husbands who cruelly refuse to grant their wives a divorce—despite rabbinical courts' orders to do so. A variety of reasons motivate these recalcitrant men. Many of them are unhappy with the financial aspect of their divorce settlement, others with custody arrangements, and they use the get as leverage in negotiations. Others hold their wives ransom, refusing to give a get until the wife pays an outrageous sum of money. While others refuse to give a get simply out of malice and spite.

Ironically, this type of agunah, the one whose husband is very much present but refuses to give a get, is a relatively new phenomenon. According to halachah, though it is the husband who gives his wife the get, a woman too may demand a divorce if she can prove that the husband is neglectful, repulsive or abusive. In such an instance, the halachah is unequivocal:

"One who is halachically required to divorce his wife and refuses to do so, a Jewish beth din – at any place and at any time7 – corporally punishes him until he says, 'I wish [to divorce].' The get is then written and it is a kosher get."8


In short: the beth din is empowered to use any and all methods at their disposal to compel the husband to "agree" to divorce his wife. This includes imposing sanctions on having casual or business dealings with the noncompliant husband, and even using brute force if necessary.9

These measures were enough to induce the vast majority of people to comply with the rabbinical courts' decisions in these matters. This remained the case until relatively recently; because for the most part Jewish communities in the Diaspora were authorized to police, adjudicate internal disputes and dispense justice within their own communities.

Today, however, religious courts are not empowered to take justice into their own hands. Add to that the fact that today most Jewish communities are not united under the auspices of one specific communal body or rabbinical court, thus severely limiting the efficacy of any social or religious sanctions imposed by a given beth din.

Thus the agunah problem has evolved. The problem of vanishing husbands has practically vanished. In its stead we are faced with a new scourge: the recalcitrant husband.
You shall make yourself the Festival of Sukkoth for seven days, when you gather in [the produce] from your threshing floor and your vat.And you shall rejoice in your Festival-you, and your son, and your daughter, and your manservant, and your maidservant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the orphan, and the widow, who are within your cities
Duet 16:13-14

Offline Kahane-Was-Right BT

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12581
In very exceptional circumstances such as this, yes I think if they can find a legal way to annul/end the marriage then they should.  People need to move on w their lives.