Friday, May 11, 2012

Divrei Chaim, Even haEzer 1:84 אונס ממון או חבטות טי היו גט מעושה

שאלה: אחד שנלקח לבע"מ [לבעל מלחמה?] והלך להרעגעמענט וביקשה אשתו שיפטרנה בג"פ [גט פטורין] ולא רצה עד שהבטיחו לו ארבעים כסף והשלישו ביד אחד שלאחר הג"פ יתן לו השליש הארבעים כסף. והנה לאחר הגט הוציאה האשה הנ"ל כתב מסירת מודעה ורצונה שהשליש יחזר לה המעות כי היתה אנוסה בהבטחת המעות ומסופק השואל אם מחויב השליש להחזיר להאשה מחמת המ"מ[המסירת מודעה] דאולי לא יועיל המ"מ וגם מסופק אם נימא דהמ"מ מועיל והמעות יוחזר להאשה אם הגט בטל כיון שגילה הבעל דעתו שאינו רוצה לגרש רק בכסף מלא וא"כ הוי למפרע גט בטאות ובטל הגט:

Question: Someone was drafted to be a soldier and entered the regiment. His wife requested that he divorce her with a get but he did not want to until they promised him 40 (silver coins/monetary units) and deposited it with someone so that after the divorce the third party would give him the money. After the get was issued this woman had written a notification and wanted for the third party to return her the money, since she was coerced into promising the money. The questioner was uncertain whether the third party is obligated to return it to the woman because of the notification since perhaps the notification was ineffective. Furthermore he was also uncertain if we say that the notification was effective and the money is returned to the women, then is the get/divorce nullified  because the husband revealed his intent that he did not want to divorce  except for the full monetary amount and therefore retroactively was an erroneous get and the get nullified?

Response: Truthfully I do not know why one would nullify the get even if we say that the money is returned to the woman, and if it is because the husband revealed that he didn't want to divorce except for the full sum, nevertheless since this wasn't mentioned at the time the get was given at all, and was not made any sort of condition such a revelation of his intent doesn't nullify the get.

Furthermore it is explained in Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 146:3, "If he said to her, 'Behold, you are divorced, and if you do not give me 200 zuz then you are not divorced' she is divorced even if it wasn't given because we do not double conditions." Consequently revealing his intent without a condition does not nullify the get. Nor can it be said to be a "compelling assumption" since we see that he doesn't want to divorce her except for the money, and with an estimation of intent a double condition isn't necessary, this is nothing because this certainly isn't anymore of an "assumption" than divorce because she was unable to have children
Nevertheless, honestly it appears that the third party must return the money to the [ex-] husband since it is written in the Teshuvos of the Rashba.....

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
As you all know, I'm a bit over my head here so if anyone has any thoughts or clarifications/corrects please let me know.

No comments: