(no subject)

[shadowkat]

I'm trying to watch A Serious Man (Superbowl? What Superbowl? There's a Superbowl on?) and it's putting me to sleep, which I guess is a good thing - since have to go there soon anyhow, having to get up at 6am and all that. Oh look, it's Howard from The Big Bang Theory playing an insightful Rabbi - providing marital advice.

Also apparently there's a Jewish version of a Catholic annulment, called a "ghet", personally I think both are absurd. Call it what it is - a divorce and be done with it.

I think it takes place in either the early 1960s or 1950s. Feels like the 1950s. Also it's reminding me a lot of Breaking Bad, except without the cancer, drugs and violence. So if you want to watch a movie about the disenfranchized American male, this time Jewish, without all that - go rent this movie.

Like most of the Coehn Brothers comedies - it's a satire or send-up of culture. This round Jewish culture. Which I think works better if you understand what they are making fun of and the time period they are sending up. Since, I'm unfamiliar with both - there's a distance between me and the material that makes it difficult for it to hold my attention or pull me in. It is well shot and with an attention to detail like most of their films. But since I don't care about any of the characters I can't quite get pulled into it.

Wait...someone important just died. Whoa.

Hmmm...maybe I should stop this and watch it another night when I'm less sleepy?

Comments

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

So, to clarify: under Jewish religious law, is the wife considered the property of her husband? And in order for a woman to remarry, she must get her current husband to agree to give up all his claims, as he might give up his claims to a house or a car that he has purchased?

Is this true for husbands as well? Do they have to get their wives to give up all claims to them as they would a piece of property, prior to remarrying?

Or is it something that only "women" have to do?

[buffyannotater.livejournal.com]

It really depends on the "level" of Judaism you're talking about. A woman isn't ever technically the property of the husband, although certain rights that she would otherwise have had are taken over by the husband. This is really only an issue with Orthodox and Hassidic Jews, though. Conservative and Reform Jews don't tend to ever consider the woman subservient to the husband, and many of the more forward-thinking Orthodox Jews, don't either. It's mostly the Hassidim who have an issue with this.

Also, the get being given from the husband to the wife is a traditional hold-over from the times when husbands were the masters, so to speak. Now, it's basically just a formality. The husband either writes a get, if he wants a divorce, or the woman "requests" the get from the husband, but really, now, it tends to be just done by both and signed in front of a rabbi. Rules in Judaism are less strict than in Catholicism, for example, because there's no central authority and no one, even a rabbi, is more holy than anyone else. So different rabbis and synagogues can do slightly different things.

Interestingly, even back in the old days, a wife could be granted a get for reasons such as physical abuse on the part of the husband or even if he wasn't satisfying her sexually. There are actually more restrictions on a husband seeking a divorce. He would have trouble if he was doing so simply to not have to pay for her medical bills. And even if "adultery" were committed, he would have to prove a number of things before being able to divorce her.

He couldn't divorce her if she was raped, or if the woman had mistaken the man for her husband. Other rules even include that witnesses had to attest that they had heard the husband warning his wife not to associate with the man in question before the "affair." Also, if the woman weren't aware of the adultery laws, she was considered innocent.

Basically, the man in traditional Judaism is the "master" but he is required to take care of his wife--her well-being, her health, and even from a sexual gratification perspective--and if he fails to do any of these things, or raises a hand to her, he loses the right to be her husband.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Thank you for this clarification. I see the differences now.

The ghet makes a lot more sense, particularly when you look at it within the context of history. Apparently the ghet came about in a time period where women really had no rights or refuge - and were literally at the mercy of men. So it was a protective device. They leave their families home and are placed under the protective care of their husband - who is responsible for "providing" for them. The ghet basically frees him of responsibility for their care.

In Catholicism - the annulement is a bit different. Because it's not about "responsibility for the woman's care" or "division of property" so much as it is about the formal and spiritual dissolution of a marriage that should never have taken place.
Annulement's can happen if for example two 18 year olds get married and realize five months later they screwed up. The view is the people were either too young or not mentally competent to make the choice. (ie. they were drunk and got married in Vegas). Having sex - does not prohibit an annulement - being drunk when you got married is enough. All you have to prove is you weren't capable of making a fully informed choice.

And divorce is a legal separation - that is mainly concerned with the division of property.