Civil "Get Laws":

If any side does not want to willingly participate in the "get" procedure but fears that the judge of the civil court will enforce an existing law to coerce a "get" through either physical or financial punishment and this is the reason he agrees to give a "get", this "get" is invalid even if Beth Din asked the judge to do so, because the judge is not doing it for the sake of Beth Din but on the basis of the civil law.

Beth Din can be considered autonomous only if they are directly empowered to coerce either side to participate in the "get" procedure without requiring them to first take their case to civil court in order for the judge to see to it that a "get" is given.

A civil court cannot withhold visitation rights from either parent because of their refusal to participate in the "get" procedure even if the reason given is that someone who refuses to give a "get" is a person of bad character and will influence the children adversely. The reason is because visiting rights can be arranged with the supervision of a third party who can protect the children from bad influence.

If the husband demanded that his wife sign the agreement giving him full visitation rights without a third party in order that he will agree to give the "get", and after giving the "get" the mother had the agreement modified to allow the father to see the children by a third party because he is suspect of child abuse and kidnaping, the "get" remains valid. The reason being that the father is still retaining visitation rights that satisfies his primary demand to see his children.

The original N.Y. State "Get Law" sponsored by Agudath Israel in essence means that the wife may petition the court not to grant her husband a civil divorce until he gives her a "get". This coercion is permitted because he is being coerced not to violate the halachic prohibition of remarrying without divorcing his present wife. Furthermore, still being halachically and legally married he must halachically and legally pay full wife and family support. If due to this the husband decides to give a "get" and says he is giving it willingly, the "get" is valid. This law in theory should have solved almost all of these problems if the civil court system would enforce the wife and child support laws properly.

When lawyers arbitrate an out of the court settlement and stipulate that each side agree to a "get", if one side objects to this stipulation but his lawyer advises him to agree because otherwise it will go to court and he will lose much more money and therefore he or she agrees to a "get", this is not a coerced "get" providing that there are no laws that will penalize him for refusing a "get". There is a general law that does not refer to the "get" but that can be used to force him to give a "get" should he decide not to abide by his agreement. It is called contempt of court when someone refuses the judges orders to abide by his agreement. However, when he signs the agreement he is not compelled to do so out of fear of any "get" law. Furthermore we do not suspect that he may have changed his mind but that he decided to give the "get" out of fear of the contempt of court order, since it is not usual that a judge will apply a contempt order to a religious ceremony. If however it would be expected that the judge would hold him in contempt of court then we would prohibit adding the "get" clause. However in this case they may sign a different agreement to go for a "get" if the agreement is not legally binding and cannot be enforced by civil court.

The Canadian "Get Law" of March 1986, refuses to grant someone in need a lawyer, or wave his court fees if he refuses a "get". Therefore if the other side is suing and he cannot defend himself he stands to lose on visiting rights and equitable distribution. If due to knowledge of this law he decides to give a "get" this is a coerced "get" and is invalid.

The more general Canadian "Get Law" of August 1990 means to say that any side refusing to participate in the "get" procedure is considered in default of coming to court and stands to lose much on visiting rights and equitable distribution. If due to knowledge of this law he decides to give a "get" it is a coerced "get" and is invalid.

The second N.Y. State "Get Law" of June 1992 empowers the court to take the money that the one refusing the "get" is entitled to under the equitable distribution act and give it to the side demanding a "get". If due to knowledge of this law he changes his mind and agrees to a "get", it is a coerced "get" and is invalid even if Beth Din authorized the judge to act. The reason is as stated before: the judge is deciding this way because of the civil law and not because of the request of Beth Din.

A get law that is contrary to the "halacha" is not valid even as far as the law of the land is concerned. If the husband gained property through such a law he must return it to its owner unless he has a "halachic" ruling justifying his ownership. In such a case Beth Din does not award this property to the wife on the basis of the civil equitable distribution law. If the wife gained property through a non- valid get law she need not return it but may use it as support. When she is no longer entitled to support she must return the unused portion, if any. In the states or countries where there are "get" coercion laws that invalidate the "get", in order to proceed with the "get" the case must be completely removed from the civil or matrimonial court so that they are no longer under their coercion. However, he may still be giving the "get" out of fear of the other side bringing suit again against him in the civil court. Therefore as a general rule, but with some exceptions, the Beth Din will also require a waiting and separation period of a month or longer for him to think things over and decide on his own to give a "get" without fear of civil court. They must not take their case back to court after the "get" because of their promise to the Beth Din and so that people should not talk about them and say that the "get" is invalid because they tricked the Beth Din.

Even if the N.Y. State 1992 "Get Law" would have been worded to say that the money taken from the husband is awarded to the wife as compensation for loses incurred by not being able to remarry, this is still monetary coercion. The reason is that this lump sum is not under the category of family support which is paid in small weekly or monthly installments. It is also not a type of tangible damage claim that can be claimed through Beth Din. Therefore this is not considered a suit about another matter but it is like saying that if you do not give a "get" you will lose this money.

There are those who claim that practically there is no problem with the N.Y. State 1992 Get Law. Their reasoning is that when asked by the Beth Din (Rabbinical court) if they came to them because they are being coerced to come and they answer in the affirmative the Beth Din will give them a helping letter to the judge that if they rule according to the 1992 Get-Law they cannot issue a Get. At this point the judge will revoke his decision to apply the law.

This reasoning does not stand up in most real situations. First of all if the Beth Din demanded that he give her a Get and he refuses to follow their instructions the Beth Din will not help him any further in his endeavors by giving him a letter to get the courts off his back. He therefore may go to a different Beth Din and not divulge that he is being forced by the civil court and receive an invalid Get. In the case where Beth Din ruled that he is not obligated to give a Get they may grant him a letter to the judge. The judge may rule that he should look for a more lenient Beth Din, one that doesn't object to the Get-Law. At this point he may decide that he is being bothered too much and he will go to a different Beth Din without stating that he is being coerced. The judge may also rule according to those who interpret the Get-Law as not being intended to interfere with the religious Get process to force a Get. This explanation says that the law is an extension of factor thirteen of section 236 of the N.Y. State Domestic Relation Law and that a woman without a Get needs to be financially compensated for losses incurred because she cannot remarry. Therefore a note from the Beth Din stating that they cannot give a Get because of coercion would confirm to the judge that the woman needs more compensation and he will use the Get-Law as a factor in the equitable distribution of property. As stated before this interpretation is also considered forcing a Get indirectly. Assuming that the judge would voluntarily state that he will not invoke the 1992 Get- Law, the reason given is the letter from Beth Din. The normal reaction to this would be that the husband would continue to refuse a Get. If he comes to Beth Din and states that he realizes that he made a mistake and wants to amend his wrong doing by giving a Get, Beth Din could test him by asking him, "Why not come to us after you are completely finished with court?" The reason is that if by the end of the proceedings there still is no Get the judge can always retract and in the final decision on equitable distribution he will invoke the 1992 Get-Law without warning him again. We therefore suspect that the husband wants the Get now to appease the judge. There are two ways to give a Get in this case, as stated before. Either to transfer the entire case to the Beth Din or to give the Get after the entire case has been completed in the courts. As far as the second way is concerned, the Canadian Get- Law was worded to be used even after they settled with the civil divorce, monetary matters, and visitation rights. Therefore, it is not applicable in Canada. As far as the N.Y. State Get-Law is concerned, the matter has recently been complicated by the autumn 1994 decision of the judge of the Brooklyn family court, judge Rigler. His decision in the case of Schwartz vs. Schwartz, was to award the contested property of Mr. Schwartz to the former Mrs. Schwartz because Mr. Schwartz had refused her a "get" for several years. This decision was entered after the Rabbinical and civil divorce. Therefore, it is not enough that the divorces were completed. The monetary disputes and the visitation rights must be completed also. Furthermore, this decision will enforce the fear of the Get-Law since Mr. Schwartz was penalized for withholding the "get" after he finally did give the "get".

Even if a law would be passed demanding that the judge inform the husband of his legal rights, that he may on his own without the confirmation of anyone else state that the Get-Law is against his religious beliefs and therefore it cannot be a factor in the equitable distribution, the problem will not be solved. The problem is with the RCA's a/k/a Rabbinical Council of America's, June 1993 decision to endorse the 1992 N.Y. State Get-Law for other states as well. This decision against the scholars and Rabbinical courts has infinitely increased the halachic pitfalls of this law. Their masses are not learned in the laws of the Get and will interpret their decision to mean that there are no halachic problems with this law. Consequently when the judge informs him of his right to state that the law is against his religious beliefs he will not lie and will not object. He will thereafter go to a Beth Din for a Get in order to avoid financial loss due to the law. When asked if he is being coerced to come he will answer "no", because the law is not a halachic problem. Halachically however, the Get is not valid.

The proponents of Canada's "Get Law" attempt to justify the law with two reasons. The first is that the purpose of the law is for the lawyer to inform his client what the court will do to him or her if either refuses to participate in the "get" process. It was not meant for the judge to threaten either side. Therefore when they come before the judge without a "get" the judge will financially penalize the one who refused the "get" without first warning him or her to go for a "get". If however the judge first warned him and he then went to Beth Din for a "get" this is a forced "get" because the judge who is empowered by the government is threatening him. This is not the same case when his lawyer informs him of the law. The lawyer does not have the power to threaten.

As explained before the halacha is that the "get" must be given out of his own free will and if he is not giving it out of his own free will because he fears what the judge will do to him, the "get" is not valid even if he is not threatened or forced by the judge.

The second reason is that the "Canadian Get Law" in section 21.1 paragraphs 4(a) (b) reads "satisfies the court in any additional manner that the court may require, that the spouse has genuine grounds of a religious or conscientious nature for refusing to remove the barriers referred to in paragraph 2(e)." Paragraph 6 reads "This section does not apply where the power to remove the barriers to religious remarriage lies with a religious body or official." Therefore they reason that if they can produce genuine proof from a Rabbinical authority that using the "Get Law" will invalidate the "get" the court will exempt him from the law.

First of all, as explained before, this is a stumbling block for RCA followers since they will misinterpret their ruling to mean that the "Get Law" is not in the category of coercion. Therefore even if asked if they were threatened by the judge they would respond negatively in order to once and for all finish with the divorce.

It is obvious that until the autumn of 1992 before the storm began over the "New York State Get Law" the "Canadian Get Law" was not publicly understood and that during these years no Rabbi was prepared to give anyone an affidavit to exempt him from the said law.

During the past year much has changed. An article was published in the leading Canadian law journal quoting from the decisions of the major halachic authorities on "gitten", against the said law. One can argue that anyone who fears that the law may be used against him can make a short inexpensive trip to New York City for an affidavit against the law. Even if he would do this it is far from certain that the judge would grant him exemption from the law. The law states that even if he has "genuine grounds of a religious nature" they may not grant him or her exemption from the said law. He may tell her to look for a more lenient Beth Din that doesn't object to the law. He may want to financially compensate the wife for her inability to remarry. The judge does not have to put in writing the reasons why he refuses to grant religious exemption. Most Canadians cannot afford the risk of losing in the lower court because they cannot afford the appeals court. Furthermore "genuine grounds of a religious nature" will probably be interpreted as related to Canadian Rabbinical authorities including Montreal Quebec. Today one can obtain such an affidavit in Montreal, Quebec and in Toronto, Ontario.

Furthermore, if the Beth Din demanded that he give his wife a "get" and he refuses, the Beth Din will not help him any further in his endeavors by giving him a letter to free him from court pressure.

In conclusion, today there are two ways for the "Canadian Get Law" to invalidate a "get". The first way is that the client's experienced lawyer will tell him that he knows the judge assigned to his case and from other precedents he feels that there is a good chance that the judge may not grant him exemption from the said law. At this point the client may feel that he cannot afford to take the risk of losing. If due to this situation he changes his mind to give a "get", this is a "get" given against his will and is invalid.

The second way is when he takes the chance and goes before the judge claiming religious exemption. If the judge refuses and gives him a chance to give the "get" before the final verdict and he decides to give the "get", the "get" is invalid.

Paragraph 6 does not apply to the case where the husband refuses the "get", because the Beth Din is not empowered by civil law to force the husband to give a "get" therefore they cannot remove the barrier to religious remarriage. The question is if this applies to the case where the wife refuses the "get". Do we say that since the Rabbinical court can issue an affidavit signed by one hundred Rabbinical scholars releasing him from the obligation of giving a "get" in order to remarry therefore the law does not apply? Or do we say that the Beth Din can only issue such an affidavit if the wife is not in a mental state of mind to receive the "get" or when the husband has ample grounds to demand from her a divorce and she simply refuses? Therefore only in these cases they allow the Beth Din to issue this affidavit and do not force her to take the "get". In the case where the Beth Din cannot cooperate with the civil court and the civil court orders a divorce but the Beth Din cannot issue the affidavit, in this case they do not have the power to remove the barrier to religious remarriage and the said law can be applied to force a "get". At this point the wife will invoke paragraph 4(a) (b) of the religious exemption clause. Again the judge may decide against this. We now have a repeat of the two ways a "get" can be forced but in reverse, from the side of the woman. In any event, the only time the court may force the woman to receive a "get" is when the "Beth Din" is on her side refusing to remove the husband's barrier to religious remarriage.

As of the start of 1994 due to Rabbinical pressure the proponents of the Canadian "Get-Laws" have introduced a "stay" order to replace the order to "strike out" in an attempt to try to give some validity to these laws and save them.

A "stay" as defined by Canadian law may mean that his/her pleading are not struck out and that he/she can be represented in court and that either one may defend himself but not make any new claims against his/her spouse. This "stay" is ordered when one side refuses to participate in the "get" process. Therefore, even if the "stay" will only result in indirect coercion it is still in the category of civil court "get" coercion.

Therefore if the husband refuses to give his wife and child support and she cannot make a claim against him for a court order to continue paying, this is coercion by the civil court. If the husband binds his paying of support to her agreeing to receive the "get", this is coercion by the husband if the wife has no other means of support.

If his/her bank account has a hold on it and the side that has a stay order cannot make a claim to lift the hold order but the other side may request release of his/her money. This is coercion by the court, if due to this reason he/she agrees to participate in their "get" process.

If one side claims his property from the other side the side that has a stay order cannot make a claim for this property if the other side claims that it belongs to equitable distribution. If it is expected that he/she will be awarded that claim and the amount is significant enough that he/she decides to participate in the "get" ceremony in order to claim that property, this is a court- coerced "get" like the previous case of not releasing the bank account monies. If the other side binds the returning of the property with participating in the "get" process it is monetary coercion by the other side and civil court coercion.

If it is expected that the side with the stay order will be awarded the children that are with the other side if he/she agrees to a "get" because they will not be brought up properly and due to his/her genuine concern for the children he/she agrees to participate in the "get" ceremony, this a coerced "get" by the civil court. If the other side would agree to give the children to him/her if he/she would agree to a "get" this is a coerced "get" by the other side and by the civil court.

If the side that does not have a stay order refuses the other side visiting rights and the other side cannot make a claim in court to enforce his/her visiting rights and if due to this he/she agrees to a "get" this is a coerced "get" by the civil court. If the other side binds the visiting rights to the "get" this is coercion by the other side and by the civil court.

The Toronto Ontario Canadian case of Rokach against Rokach was resolved on Nov.1,1994. Justice Smith removed the stay against Ester Rokach before the final trial on that day because the stay was against Canadian law in violation of her religious beliefs. However, as this law still remains in the books.

The latest on the Canadian "get" law is, that during the past three years, (1996-1999) there are five known cases of court coercion to participate in the "get" process. With four cases the "get" law was used to coerce the giving of a "get", and in one case "contempt of court" was used.

In the decision of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division- Second Department, in the case of Becher against Becher on Dec. 15, 1997, it was ruled that if the parties involved file a motion to waive the provision in the 1992 Get law, the judge may not take into account the lack of a Rabbinical divorce (get) in the equitable distribution of their properties.

Being that only a small percentage of those residing in New York State require a Rabbinical divorce (get) and a civil divorce, therefore, the 1992 get law is taken into consideration only if one side mentions in its papers to the court that the other side refused to cooperate when it demanded that they go to a Rabbi for a get. When the other side receives a copy of these court papers, it will automatically expect to loose its properties under the 1992 Get Law. At this point it goes to a Rabbinical court. When asked by the Rabbinical court if it is here of its own free will, it tells the truth, that the side that refused to go for a Rabbinical divorce decided to do so because it fears losing its property under the 1992 Get Law. At this stage, the side that is being coerced to participate in the get ceremony cannot halachikly participate unless it files a waiver in court to be exempt from the 1992 Get Law. The question is, is this waiver irrevocable so that once it is approved by the court, the side that had originally refused to go for a get will be convinced that there is nothing to fear anymore and that its desire to participate in the get ceremony is of its own free will.

Let us assume that after the court approves the waiver to the 1992 Get Law, the other side can request from the court to cancel the waiver on the grounds that the Rabbinical court coerced her/him to file the waiver in order to proceed with the get, but that the get is presently unobtainable. Therefore, she/he requests of the court to award her/him more money according to the 1992 Get Law. At this point she/he has given up hope for a get for the time being and is satisfied with the extra money. Therefore, the side originally refusing to go for a get will not be convinced that the waiver immunizes him/her from the said law, and it is still considered requesting the get under coercion.

Some lawyers have suggested filing the waiver by repeating the original scenario from the Becher vs. Becher case where the husband responded to the wife's threat of invoking the said law with a counter threat of challenging the said law's constitutionality. At this point, the wife decides that she wants to avoid the constitutional challenge and requests to waive the said law. This way no one can claim that he/she was coerced by the Rabbinical court to file the waiver. In my opinion he/she can still claim that the main reason for filing the waiver was because the Rabbinical court refused to proceed with the get without the waver, and that the statement in the papers was made because this is the only way he/she had thought the court would grant the request for the waiver.

If however, the second approach is used where they replay the Becher case scenario and they are told by the Rabbinical court to return for a get after they have completed their civil divorce proceedings and received their civil divorce, then the chances for them to return to court and reopen the case to the extent of the court reapplying the said law is very small. Therefore, at this point a get may be given. If when they returned to the Rabbinical court some outstanding issues were left unresolved that can be legally resolved through third party arbitration out of court, and they agree that the Rabbinical court should be this third party arbitrator, then they do not have to return again to the Rabbinical court. The issues are first resolved and the get is given afterwards.

If it would be legal under New York State law to stamp the request to waive the 1992 Get Law as irrevocable if the petitioners so requested. Then a get could be given after the request was entered as irrevocable.

If however, one of the petitioners for a get claims that he/she needs the get now in order to remarry in Israel, and does not want to wait for the lengthily legal procedures before the case is finalized in court, it is then the obligation of the Rabbinical court to substantiate this claim. If it is substantiated, then the Rabbinical court should proceed with the get as soon as it can. The reason being that it has not been proven that this waiver can be revoked. Even if it can be revoked, there lack sufficient reasons to revoke the waiver. The opposing side will claim that he/her is willing to participate in the get process according to the ruling of the Rabbinical court that instructed them to return for the get after they finalize their divorce in civil court. Therefore, the intent of the Rabbinical court was a legal remedy, namely, how to give a get in this case and not to coerce him/her to file for a waiver.

It is advisable that the Rabbinical court issue a written notarized statement to the civil court advising it that the couple has been divorced according to Jewish orthodox law.

Even if there is no mention of a get in the court papers, nevertheless, as long as the case is still open, one side can always threaten the other side to file such papers, and if done, the threatened side is under coercion to give a get; this would render the get invalid.

A married woman made a separation agreement, where to substitute for paying weekly or monthly support to his wife, the husband transferred income producing property to her name. Bad times came, and tenants moved out and she had no income from this property. She then demanded support from her husband. Since her husband is obligated to support her on the basis of her "kesubah", he can demand either the return of the property in exchange for future support, or for her to sell it and live off the monies before demanding support from him. If she makes a private deal with her husband or through a Beth Din that in turn for a "get" she will not demand support for herself, it is considered as if she pays him for the "get", and it is not coercion. If, however, after the "get" she reneges on her agreement and sues him in court for support, the "get" is invalid for the same reason a "get" is invalid if the husband was promised money for a "get" and after the "get" he was not paid.

She sued her husband afterwards in court for support that she would ordinarily not be awarded except for her claim that the extra amount is to compensate her for her inability to remarry. This extra money is not money that can be claimed through a Beth Din, since it is not in the category of support, nor is it considered a tangible loss. Therefore, if she states that if she receives a "get" she will demand less of the extra money, or demand no extra money at all, or demand no extra money and demand less support, the "get" is invalid because it is monetary coercion as long as the deciding factor in his decision to give a "get" is the removal of her demand for the extra money. The reason for this is that only through the court can she claim the extra money that is being used by her as a whip over him to give a "get".

One who prevents the person refusing to participate in the "get" process from accessing money that is due to him or even if it only prevents him from earning money that he would ordinarily be able to, it is the same as if he is laid off his job in order to coerce him/her to participate in the "get" process and the "get" is invalid.

Pre- nuptials are agreements between bride and groom signed at the time of the wedding stipulating that if the marriage ends in divorce the couple are bound to go to a Beth Din or to a learned Rabbi for a "get". Some pre- nuptials state that if either side refuses a "get" their marriage becomes retroactively null and void and they may remarry without a "get". This form of pre- nuptial was declared void and was forbidden generations ago. Other pre- nuptials stipulate a monetary fine for each day either side refuses a "get". They do not mention that it is to be collected only through Beth Din. Another pre- nuptial warns that if anyone breaks this contract by refusing a "get" the court can fine and jail him. It does not stipulate that they need the approval of Beth Din first. Therefore with these pre- nuptials if the one refusing a "get" sees that the other side is preparing to take him to court on the basis of their pre- nuptial contract and because he fears he will lose he decides to give the "get", the "get" is coerced and invalid.

Only a professional experienced Beth Din that specializes in questions about forced "gittin" can be relied on in this matter.

There is another pre- nuptial version where the prospective couple signs an agreement for a Rabbinical court to decide between themselves if they do not agree on matters of divorce. Their signatures at the time of marriage are to be in effect and valid when one sues the other in Rabbinical court. Furthermore they agree that the Rabbinical court can fine them for the costs incurred in order that they can arrive at a decision. This includes lawyers' costs and other costs that the Rabbinical courts are not empowered to award but can only fine them for this amount when necessary. Therefore if one side refuses to go to Rabbinical court the other side can demand a default verdict that would be legally based on the signing of the pre- nuptial. If the other side refuses to go to a Rabbinical court then even if the pre- nuptial specifies a Rabbinical court, the civil court will recognize any three pulpit Rabbis as a valid Rabbinical court. Each city, state and province has their own rules and set of laws. One cannot predict the decisions of the civil courts on a country- wide basis.

The halachic pitfalls with this pre- nuptial are that the verdict of the Rabbinical court based on this pre- nuptial can be enforced by civil court without prior permission of that Rabbinical court and that with the exception of Israel there are only a handful of experienced Botai Din that may be relied on to decide if a "get" may be forced.

Now I will explain the above. Let us discuss first the problem of an inexperienced Rabbinical court. Assuming there is no halachic basis to force a "get" but the Rabbinical court erroneously tells the husband that if he does not give the "get" they will give a verdict that he must pay the fines stipulated in the pre- nuptial and have it enforced by civil court. If due to this monetary coercion he decides to give the "get" it is invalid. Assuming in this case it is permitted to force him to give the "get" but the Beth Din does not have the power to enforce its decision. The wife now takes the verdict of the Beth Din to civil court with or without the permission of the Rabbinical court. The civil court will not call the Rabbinical court to ask permission to force the "get" either through the paying of a fine or through a contempt of court order for not giving the "get". Furthermore, even if the Rabbinical court would object they may be overruled by the civil court on the basis that the means used to enforce the verdict of the Rabbinical court is out of the jurisdiction of the Rabbinical court and now in the hands of the civil court. Therefore the civil court in enforcing the verdict of the Rabbinical court is not telling the husband to abide by the decision of the Rabbinical court but is telling him to abide by the ruling of the civil court that is in part based on the ruling of the Rabbinical court. This is still coercion of the civil court and invalidates the "get". Only if the Beth Din is directly empowered to coerce a "get" and the civil court must receive explicit orders from the Beth Din and from no one else, can it then be considered that the court is a representative of Beth Din and the "get" would then be valid.

Therefore, even an experienced Beth Din should not include in their verdict regarding distribution of properties any decision that he must give a "get" or pay a fine. The decision that he must give a "get" or pay a fine when he may be forced to give a "get" should be given as a separate verdict that cannot be used in court.

The following is an example of a kosher pre- nuptial agreement.

Whereas, Husband and Wife intend to marry in the near future, and intend to marry according to orthodox Jewish law. May G-d bless them with a lifelong successful and happy marriage.

This acceptance of Husband and Wife to marry according to orthodox Jewish law also obligates Husband and Wife by the same authority to submit to a knowledgeable Rabbinical court or Beth Din, to decide if to halachically dissolve their marriage when demanded by either side. It further obligates Husband and Wife to willingly participate in the "get" process if so demanded by the Rabbinical court.

Husband and Wife both understand their legal rights and obligations and are signing this agreement freely and voluntarily, intending to be bound by it, and is not signing it under any duress or any sort of emotional strain that would render this agreement invalid. Husband and Wife acknowledge that they have reviewed this agreement with Rabbinical and legal counsel of their choosing and have been informed of their rights under law. Any decision or judgement of the Rabbinical court shall be enforceable.

This agreement and any part thereof is limited to the jurisdiction of the Rabbinical court only and does not empower the civil court to enforce it in any way whatsoever.

The new N.Y. State and Canadian "get" laws are a desecration of the Torah and a stumbling block for legally but halachically forbidden incest. These laws must be removed from the books. The same is true for the above pre- nuptials, although they can be corrected by stipulating that Beth Din must first approve any monetary claims against the other party and/or approve taking the other side to civil court. At most orthodox weddings they refuse pre- nuptials because they feel that there is enough in the "kesubah" relating to divorce and it is not proper to add to the subject upon marriage.

The "halachic" rules of wife support are complicated and many. It is therefore not possible to pass a "get" law based on coercing the husband by obligating him to pay more money to his wife that would follow the "halacha", especially when it will be ruled on by a judge and not a Rabbi. The first N.Y. State get law does not deal directly with wife support but simply refuses him the right to remarry by refusing him a civil divorce. This is a simple law that is "halachically" valid in all cases and is therefore "halachically" acceptable. There are states that allow a judge to raise the alimony payments after the civil divorce when it can be proven that the wife needs that amount. Therefore a judge, without the assistance of any get law may raise the alimony payments on the basis that since her barrier to remarriage was not removed and she lacks the support of a new husband, therefore she needs more money. The alimony payments must not exceed the amount of wife and child support that he was paying before the civil divorce unless Beth Din authorizes a larger payment due to a new handicap or the like. Beth Din must also be consulted if she is deserving of such payments. If not the judge should only award the minimum alimony payment demanded by law.

The proper way to alleviate "Get Extortion" is by including it in the general criminal law under religious extortion, but it must not give the judge the option to decrease the punishment should he finally give the "get" without charge. Otherwise we must suspect that the reason he gave the "get" was to avoid a more severe punishment and not out of his own free will.

The proper way to enable the original "Get Law" of N.Y. State to work is to enforce the existing laws of wife and family support. Also to pass a new law that gives priority to family responsibility by authorizing the court to sell the husband's property, including his home and car. The money is held in his name by the court and the court pays, from this fund and its interest, wife and family support in weekly or monthly installments until he gives her a "get" and thereafter receives a civil divorce. This would be a general civil law not taking in consideration if a "get" was or was not given.

All the halachic authorities and Botai Din (Rabbinical courts) of Israel which constitute the vast majority of Rabbinical courts for "gitten", agree with the verdict of their highest halachic authorities Rav S.Y. Eliashev and Rav S.Z. Aurbach that states, "Everyone knows that a GET that is consented to by a husband out of fear of imprisonment or financial loss by secular authority and not from the requirements of our holy Torah, is considered a "GET under duress and is INVALID........ I feel that the law is a hazard, and can cause 'chas v'sholom much harm, and therefore it is better that this law be removed from the books....".

According to halacha no one is permitted to oppose this decision so as not to split society where according to the majority the offspring is forbidden as a momzer and according to others he is kosher.

The signatures of renowned American Torah scholars who have signed the petition for repeal of this "Get" law are listed at the end.

next | previous |  table of contents