Apart from the bill's flaws with respect to the validity of Gittin,
there are three other anti-halachic effects. In the opinion of this writer,
these effects are so manifest, so incontrovertible, that it is mystifying
that any Orthodox Rabbi, much less any rabbinic institution, can be in
favor of it.
I. The first basic flaw in the Get Bill is that it is intended to
aid in procuring a Get -- even if there is no reason according to
Jewish law to assume a Get to be appropriate.
Halacha does not sanction a Get on demand. True, by biblical
law, a man can divorce his wife against her will, without giving any reason
whatsoever (although it is "religiously forbidden for him to do so until he
has "due cause").6 The woman, on
the other hand, cannot initiate the act of divorce, although she can claim to
have certain specific grounds for a divorce. In other words, she can become
the plaintiff in a Din Torah (a legal suit before a Bet Din),
claiming that a Get is due her. If she wins her case, the Bet Din
will order the husband to give a Get. [...]
Without this halachic process, no one is justified in assuming that a Get is obligatory or even appropriate. Halachically, the marital state cannot be rent asunder on a mere whim, or because of boredom or lack of excitement or inconveniences. Rather, there must be halachic grounds for a Get.[...]
These laws which govern the grounds for a Get are the same as all
Torah laws which govern our lives: Just as the laws governing Tzitzit,
Tefillin, Shabbat, Lulav and business dealings are those dictated to
us by Shulchan Aruch, so, too, are the halachic rules which concern
grounds for divorce. Anyone purporting to live a life governed by halacha
must orient his/her thinking in this direction. Therefore, action taken by
anyone to facilitate a Get for a man/woman if the Get is halachically
unjustified, even if that action does not halachically invalidate the Get,
is anti-halachic. [This does not refer to friendly persuasion. Surely an
outsider, considering it irrational for a spouse to continue a marriage
when the other spouse wants a divorce for any reason, would consider it
correct to advise a partv to take/receive a Get. But any action beyond
such friendly persuasion is morally wrong.]
Lack of appreciation of this basic premise -- that a Get is not
to be obtained merely because one wants one - explains much of the
erroneous thinking of the proponents of the Get Bill. Nothing in the
bill limits its effects to where a competent halachic authority -- a
Bet Din -- has found a Get called for. Surprisingly, the
proponents of the bill have not felt a need to address this issue,
although it seems that it is a call for "Get-on-demand" -- an
anti-Halachic statement! (Try to imagine a bill passed in the New York
State legislature which mandates that A pay B money, even when their
monetary dispute is unresolved -- and A maintains vehemently that he
owes no such money!) [...]
III. As we have noted, the prohibition of resorting to the secular courts
holds true even if every court action happens to follow all the rules of
the Shulchan Aruch. If there are any differences, the additional issue
of out-and-out theft arises, if the courts award money or privileges to
either party.21
(Even in circumstances where one had received permission from a Bet
Din to "use the courts" one is prohibited from keeing any monies he is
not entitled to according to halacha.)
The Get Bill encourages a woman to use the civil courts to set rates of
maintenance and "equitable distribution despite the fact that she might
not be entitled to that money according to Jewish law. For example, let
us say a woman has no due cause (halachically) for a Get, but has opened
a case as the plaintiff in the civil courts for a divorce. Rabbi Akiva
Eiger discusses just such a case, and compares this woman to a classic
Moredet (a rebellious wife) who is not entitled to receive any support
whatsoever. Certainly, too, "equitable distribution" has no halachic
equivalent, but is merely the transference of property from one party to
the other by state fiat; this money, then, does not belong to the
acquiring party al pi din.24
(The chances of "equitable distribution" being covered by the rule of
Dina D'malchuta Dina are almost nil. [...]