Parshas Emor

"My ex is doing a lousy job raising our son. They caught him walking
out of a store without paying!!"
"Maybe he learned from you.When was the last time you paid alimony ??"

"Say to the priests...and say to them.." (Vayikra 21:1) Rashi explains
that the double expression of "say" teaches us that the parents should teach
the children. Rav Reuven Grazofsky zt"l said that a person can only teach
his child, when he (the parent) "learnt the lesson himself".

When it comes to parenting, teaching, or influencing: do it by example.

Have a great Shabbos !!

Rabbi Chaim Flom

Dear Rabbi Flom,
Maybe if the wife TOLD her kids that her ex didn't pay up, she is also teaching bad lessons!!
Lynn

Only tell what must or should be told.Not everything and anything should be told.Two wrongs don't make a right. Children are not supposed to know details of their parents' finances.
Maybe they have credit i n the store and you don't know,so it looked like the children took without paying.

quote:

Originally posted by Baltan:
Dear Rabbi Flom,
Maybe if the wife TOLD her kids that her ex didn't pay up, she is also teaching bad lessons!!
Lynn

To Lynn & Raphael,
For sure no parent has the right to sling mud on his spouse in front of the children Children should never be pawns in a divorce, nor forced to "hate" one parent.
Unfortunately, when a father is a rasha, and doesn't want to pay alimony, the mother doesn't have to tell the kids-- the father's attitude usually shines though.
Thanks.
Rabbi Flom

Dear Rabbi Flom:

Is there any limit to this sentiment?

Is there any possible reason why a man who is not a rasha might have a legitimate reason to withhold payment of an egregious alimony obligation well beyond his means?

Suppose a good man was married to a wicked woman who falsely claimed to be Jewish, and ends up having children before discovering how he and others were tricked. Or suppose she mis-uses all money sent for the benefit of their offspring on her own drug hobbies or personal entertainment, such that sending more money would not even be effective for helping their children to have their needs met?

How far should a man have to go to be a pawn in the circus of man-hating family court travesties ?

Dear Rob,
If Beis Din made the guy pay x amount, he is obligated to pey it until he can have them recalculate.
If the man can prove to the Beis Din that she's using the money for xxx, that's fine. Until he proves it, he has to pay.
I would imagine that this applies to secular courts too. Once they obligate me, I have to pay. The burden of proof is now on me.
Take care.
Rabbi Flom

Dear Rabbi Flom:

Your advice makes perfect sense.

I would like to steer the matter further against the Rasha presumption with another hypothetical.

Suppose the man with his respect of the court even when a travesty of justice has been ordered tries to pay the ordered amount, but is unable to raise the funds while gathering his proof for why the amount is unjust, and he loses his job, unable to pay, without stealing.

And suppose his ex-wife uses repeated techniques to avoid a hearing to reconsider the amount of an ordered payment.

Is there any case where after 3 postponed hearings or circumstances beyond his control preventing him from meeting the unjust demand, or without far more effort than one is expected to give, by which his failure to pay should not give him a presumption of being a rasha?

How about if since there is no way to recover an overpayment, and he would have to borrow without ability to repay to fund the unjust payment, would he be more of a rasha to steal, or borrow what he sees no way to repay, or more of a rasha to, with sending notification to the court that he intends to prove the amount unjust, not pay the ordered amount?