Q&A: The Case of the Wealthy Husband Who Is Withholding a Get: An Accumulated Fine That Reached About One Million NIS
The Case of the Wealthy Husband Who Is Withholding a Get: An Accumulated Fine That Reached About One Million NIS
Question
https://twitter.com/EliShlezinger/status/1257925070321836035
How is it possible that the laws of divorce allowed a situation precisely of the kind the Torah wanted to prevent when it spoke about a bill of severance?
There is no such thing in the Torah as a “get-refuser.”
And there is a law in the Torah that if someone does such an act of abuse, his punishment under the Torah is death. (And that is in the context of this whole issue.)
So how is it possible that Jewish law invented the concept of a “get-refuser,” by means of which one can arrive at a situation that did not exist in the first place according to the Torah, and which in general carries the death penalty for criminals who do this? About people like these the Torah says, “you shall purge the evil from your midst.” And yet Jewish law lets them celebrate.
An upside-down world.
“When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found in her some indecency, then he shall write her a bill of severance, place it in her hand, and send her out of his house” … “and you shall not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.” … “If a man is found kidnapping one of his brothers from among the children of Israel, and he abuses him and sells him, then that thief shall die, and you shall purge the evil from your midst.”
Answer
I have not been privileged to understand this strange collection of declarations. Nothing here is reasoned or argued.
Discussion on Answer
A nice homily (though a bit weak). If you had been on the Sanhedrin, maybe you would have managed to persuade everyone.
If I had lived in their time, I probably would have thought there was nothing to be done and that every other possibility had too many holes in it.
But that was a technological issue.
The technology in the time of the Sanhedrin did not include digital signatures, cameras, and transmitting information between countries in a fraction of a second.
If the Sanhedrin had technology like ours, their considerations would have been very different regarding possible scenarios.
And the Torah says, “And you shall come to the Levitical priests and to the judge who will be in those days, and you shall inquire, and they will tell you the matter of the judgment.”
“In those days” — each era and its own considerations.
Second try.
A “get-refuser” is similar to the law, “If a man is found kidnapping one of his brothers from among the children of Israel, and he abuses him and sells him, then that thief shall die, and you shall purge the evil from your midst” (this appears immediately after “and he shall gladden his wife whom he has taken,” which appears after the bill of severance).
This is more severe than the matter of having to give a bill of severance.
The matter of the bill of severance comes to prevent (among other things) a situation of “her first husband who sent her away may not take her again to be his wife.”
What is wrong with that situation? That there should not be a state of trafficking in women. Or rampant promiscuity. Or that the woman herself should become a trader. But (and mainly) it comes to prevent a situation of “and he abuses him” — that is, her, the woman. And therefore the Torah commands that a bill of severance be given, so that the whole matter should be regulated and orderly.
And now the Sages created a situation where “and place it in her hand” is more important than the law of “and he abuses him,” and that is absurd.
It should simply have been said according to the Torah that all laws of contracts and ownership are void when “and he abuses him” takes place (for there the thief incurs the death penalty).