DEUT1321 "Lashon hara for a purpose" is permitted when someone is doing something very wrong, and there is reason to believe that publicizing this fact will pressure the person to change his behavior. For example, Jewish law, basing itself on [this verse], invests the right to initiate divorce in the hands of the husband; therefore it is the man who must grant his wife a get, a Jewish divorce. If a man refuses to do so, the woman remains an agunah, "a chained woman," and is forbidden to all other men [since the Tenth Century, Jewish law has ruled that a woman must accept the get willingly. If she refuses to do so, then the husband is likewise forbidden to marry another.] In instances in which a man refuses to give a get, and a rabbinical court has made clear it that he should do so, it is permitted to publicize this fact, and to exert a variety of pressures on the man, including publicizing his behavior in newspapers (particularly Jewish newspapers), picketing his residence and/or place of business, and walking out of a synagogue service in which he is accorded any honor (such as being called to the Torah for an aliyah). Even in such a case, however, we should abide by the rules of lashon hara and reveal only that information which the public needs to know about the case (thus, it does not seem right to reveal embarrassing information about the person that is extraneous to the issue of the divorce).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1324 If a man wants to divorce his wife, he must write her a writ of divorce. Hashem created women to help the men. A man can have no greater asset than a good wife. The Torah states that if a man finds that his wife is not a help to him but a hindrance, he may divorce her. After all, her whole purpose is to aid and support him, and if she only drags him down, he is not obligated to keep her as his wife. According to the laws of some nations, men are forbidden to divorce their wives, which is often devastating. Having no fear of divorce, she can destroy her husband completely, as well as his possessions. As to why divorce is accomplished only through a written document given to the woman, and verbal divorce does not suffice, the reason is to prevent promiscuity. A woman might be unfaithful to her husband and then claim that he had already divorced her. To prevent such vile behavior, the Torah requires a written document of divorce that is handed to the woman in the presence of witnesses. If a woman claims that her husband divorced her, she is not believed unless she shows us the גט (get). Another reason why divorce is not verbal is to lessen its frequency. Were it possible to divorce one’s wife simply through speech, men who get angry with their wives would be able to divorce them instantly. In a burst of rashness, having lost control of his emotions, a man in a moment of anger could easily send away a very good wife. The Torah requires a written גט so that while it is being prepared, there will be time for husbands to calm down and think twice before taking such a fateful step. Nothing is more important than maintaining peace. If a man sends his wife away without giving her a writ of divorce, his punishment is great, for she still is his wife. Men will think that she is divorced, and few sins are more serious than having relations with a married woman.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1325 A man should not divorce his wife unless he finds in her "a thing of nakedness" [i.e., licentiousness], as it is written: "and it shall be… for he found in her a thing of nakedness" -- because he found in her a thing of nakedness [he should divorce her, but not otherwise] (Gittin 90a)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1326 The literal meaning of this verse indicates that the husband is the exclusive initiator of the proceedings that culminate either in marriage or divorce. Rabbi Simeon said: "Why does the Torah say 'when a man takes a wife,' and not 'when a woman takes a husband'? Because it is in the nature of man to seek after the woman and not in the nature of the woman to seek after the man." Kiddushin 2b. Although neither Jewish nor general law places the woman at a disadvantage in initiating the process culminating in marriage, biology, society, and long-standing tradition have limited her freedom even in this realm much more than that of the man. In the matter of terminating a marriage, however, the biblical law, as at present [i.e., 1977-AJL] interpreted and applied, places the Jewish woman, in countries where the Jewish community exercises no legally enforceable authority over its members, completely in the power of her alienated husband. Even though the man may have been granted a civil divorce and even have remarried, he may nevertheless refuse to grant her a get, a rabbinically sanctioned religious divorce, or may consent to grant it only on conditions that he sets. The hardships that this frequently imposes on innocent women were recognized early in Jewish history, and, as we shall see, the Rabbis tried to overcome them. But the problem was not altogether solved evening in periods when the Jewish community exercised considerable legal authority over its members and could severely punish those who transgressed its enactments. The scope of the problem infinitely increased in modern times, when most Jewish diaspora communities ceased to exercise any significant legally enforceable authority over their members. Attempts to find a solution, therefore, we made on the level of both theory and practice, and a vast literature dealing with the subject has been developed over the centuries. (See e.g. Freiman, Avraham Hayyim. Seder Kiddushin Unsuin. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 5707 = 1945). But no solution has yet been suggested by anyone which has won widespread acceptance both in theory and in practice. The dimensions of the problem have in the meantime continue to increase rather than to diminish.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1327 See [[EXOD630]] Exodus 22:10 oath GATES 421

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1328 It is written here: "thing," and, elsewhere (19:15): "By word of two witnesses… shall a thing be established." Just as there, two witnesses [are required]; here, too, two witnesses [are required to establish her licentiousness] (Gittin 90a)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1329 R. Pappa said to Rava: If he found in her neither "nakedness" nor a "thing" [of any kind], and he divorced her, what is the halachah? [i.e., is the divorce valid?] He answered: Since Scripture made manifest in respect to a ravisher (22:29): "He shall not be able to send her away all of his days" -- all of his days he is subject to the positive commandant of taking her back -- it is there that this was made manifest; but here, what was done was done [and the divorce stands] (GIttin 90a)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1330 Indeed, it would be contrary to the interests of the couple, their children, and society to preserve a union which generates unceasing discord and antisocial attitudes. To quote a talmudic maxim: "No individual can live permanently in the same den with a snake" (Yevamot 112b). Under some circumstances, the dissolution of a marriage by divorce is not only desirable but meritorious (Eruvin 41b). In the absence of compelling reasons, the termination of a marriage by divorce is regarded in Judaism has a great tragedy. "When a divorce ends a first marriage, the altar shed tears" (Gittin 91b). The altar, a symbol of reconciliation between man and God, shed tears when two individuals in conflict cannot reconcile to one another. The Pentateuch seems to be deliberately vague in its description of a legitimate cause for divorce. A man divorces his wife "because he has found an unseemly thing in her" [this verse]. What is the definition of an "unseemly thing"? Is it in her moral conduct or in her general inadequacy as a wife? Rabbinic interpretations differ. However, the vagueness of the text might indicate that the definition of an "unseemly thing" should be left to the social and moral perceptions of each generation.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1331 No man shall remarry a woman he divorced if she had been another man's wife in the meantime. Key concept is to distance us from anything that even resembles promiscuity. If a divorced woman who remarried could later remarry her first husband, it would appear similar to the conduct of an unfaithful wife. Therefore, once a divorced woman remarries, her first husband can never take her back as his wife.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1332 (Continued from [[DEUT678]] Deuteronomy 14:21 ate LEHRMAN 67). Another example of the Hebrew verb Yakhol (to be able) being used of moral inability is in [this verse]. Here, too, it is not the physical inability that is alluded to in the words lo yukhal, but the moral imperative that is stressed. Her former husband cannot remarry her after she had married again and was released by her second husband's divorce or death. Such an act would be deemed an "abomination" (toavah) before the Lord." The lesson stressed is that a moral imperative shall make a base action as impossible of fulfillment just as a total lack of physical strength incapacitates action -- an idea which raises Jewish teachings to sublime pinnacles.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT