Podcast #128: We chat with Kent C Dodds about why he loves React and discuss what life was like in the dark days before Git. Listen now.
2 you say "the 'witnesses' who signed the get are probably not valid and the 'bait din' that had the get written probably do not know the technicalities of a get," so clearly you meant this.
source | link

If an nonOrthodox "get" is obtained, the divorce is probably invalid and the people (if they were married to begin with) are probably still married. This would be because the "witnesses" who signed the get are probably not valid and the "bait din" that had the get written probably do not know the technicalities of a get. Given that a valid bait din is used, then the question would be is the heterodox "marriage" valid or did a valid marriage take place even though the "ceremony" itself was not valid.

Since two kosher witnesses are required and the husband must present the ring in front of them, there is the possibility that a non-Orthodox "ceremony" may actually be valid (bediavad - after the fact). That is, there may be two kosher witnesses among the guests who see the "ceremony". As a result, there are those that would say that a get is required in order to avoid problems. This is especially the case when the couple intend to marry, since intercourse with intent for kiddushin is one of the valid methods from the Torah. I have found a citation that says

The “legal formalities” exceptions to the need for a get have also been applied with respect to marriages in which a double-ring ceremony took place, as well as to Jewish marriages that are performed by Reform or Conservative rabbis. Rabbi Moses Feinstein ruled that Reform and Conservative ceremonies never meet the formal requirements of a valid marriage “in accordance with the laws of Moses and Israel” (Igrot Moshe, Even ha-Ezer part 3, siman 25; part 4, siman 77 and 78). However, Rabbi Hayyim (Howard) Jachter, in an article entitled “Conservative Kiddushin,” has taken the position that, with respect to Conservative marriage ceremonies, such blanket rulings cannot be made and that the validity of each Conservative marriage must be decided on a case-by-case basis (Tehumin 18 [1998]: 84–91).

In an Israel rabbinic court ruling of 2003, Rabbi Shlomo Dichovsky was asked to determine the status of Reform marriages. He held that an Israeli couple who married both in Cyprus in a civil ceremony and in Israel in a Reform ceremony were not married “in accordance with the laws of Moses and Israel” but were married in accordance with Jewish law. Dichovsky deemed the Cypriotic-Reform marriage to be a “Noahite” marriage. A “Noahite” marriage is not null and void ab initio. It is a marriage that Jewish law recognizes and whose termination must be declared by a court of law. Dichovsky held that the Israel rabbinic courts could terminate the Noahite marriage following the determination that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. But since the “Noahite” marriage was not “in accordance with the laws of Moses and Israel,” there was no need for the husband to give his wife a get, or for the wife to accept the get in order for the marriage to terminate. Thus, by applying the “formalities” of Orthodox marriage ceremonies in such a manner as to invalidate Reform ceremonies, Rabbi Dichovsky’s ruling presents an interesting solution for those Israeli couples who choose to marry in non-Orthodox ceremonies and who want to avoid the pitfalls of Jewish divorce law. It also preserves the jurisdiction of the rabbinic courts over such marriages (Ha-din ve-ha-dayyan [The Law and Its Decisor] 5 (February 2004): 5–9).

If an nonOrthodox "get" is obtained, the divorce is invalid and the people (if they were married to begin with) are still married. This would be because the "witnesses" who signed the get are probably not valid and the "bait din" that had the get written probably do not know the technicalities of a get. Given that a valid bait din is used, then the question would be is the heterodox "marriage" valid or did a valid marriage take place even though the "ceremony" itself was not valid.

Since two kosher witnesses are required and the husband must present the ring in front of them, there is the possibility that a non-Orthodox "ceremony" may actually be valid (bediavad - after the fact). That is, there may be two kosher witnesses among the guests who see the "ceremony". As a result, there are those that would say that a get is required in order to avoid problems. This is especially the case when the couple intend to marry, since intercourse with intent for kiddushin is one of the valid methods from the Torah. I have found a citation that says

The “legal formalities” exceptions to the need for a get have also been applied with respect to marriages in which a double-ring ceremony took place, as well as to Jewish marriages that are performed by Reform or Conservative rabbis. Rabbi Moses Feinstein ruled that Reform and Conservative ceremonies never meet the formal requirements of a valid marriage “in accordance with the laws of Moses and Israel” (Igrot Moshe, Even ha-Ezer part 3, siman 25; part 4, siman 77 and 78). However, Rabbi Hayyim (Howard) Jachter, in an article entitled “Conservative Kiddushin,” has taken the position that, with respect to Conservative marriage ceremonies, such blanket rulings cannot be made and that the validity of each Conservative marriage must be decided on a case-by-case basis (Tehumin 18 [1998]: 84–91).

In an Israel rabbinic court ruling of 2003, Rabbi Shlomo Dichovsky was asked to determine the status of Reform marriages. He held that an Israeli couple who married both in Cyprus in a civil ceremony and in Israel in a Reform ceremony were not married “in accordance with the laws of Moses and Israel” but were married in accordance with Jewish law. Dichovsky deemed the Cypriotic-Reform marriage to be a “Noahite” marriage. A “Noahite” marriage is not null and void ab initio. It is a marriage that Jewish law recognizes and whose termination must be declared by a court of law. Dichovsky held that the Israel rabbinic courts could terminate the Noahite marriage following the determination that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. But since the “Noahite” marriage was not “in accordance with the laws of Moses and Israel,” there was no need for the husband to give his wife a get, or for the wife to accept the get in order for the marriage to terminate. Thus, by applying the “formalities” of Orthodox marriage ceremonies in such a manner as to invalidate Reform ceremonies, Rabbi Dichovsky’s ruling presents an interesting solution for those Israeli couples who choose to marry in non-Orthodox ceremonies and who want to avoid the pitfalls of Jewish divorce law. It also preserves the jurisdiction of the rabbinic courts over such marriages (Ha-din ve-ha-dayyan [The Law and Its Decisor] 5 (February 2004): 5–9).

If an nonOrthodox "get" is obtained, the divorce is probably invalid and the people (if they were married to begin with) are probably still married. This would be because the "witnesses" who signed the get are probably not valid and the "bait din" that had the get written probably do not know the technicalities of a get. Given that a valid bait din is used, then the question would be is the heterodox "marriage" valid or did a valid marriage take place even though the "ceremony" itself was not valid.

Since two kosher witnesses are required and the husband must present the ring in front of them, there is the possibility that a non-Orthodox "ceremony" may actually be valid (bediavad - after the fact). That is, there may be two kosher witnesses among the guests who see the "ceremony". As a result, there are those that would say that a get is required in order to avoid problems. This is especially the case when the couple intend to marry, since intercourse with intent for kiddushin is one of the valid methods from the Torah. I have found a citation that says

The “legal formalities” exceptions to the need for a get have also been applied with respect to marriages in which a double-ring ceremony took place, as well as to Jewish marriages that are performed by Reform or Conservative rabbis. Rabbi Moses Feinstein ruled that Reform and Conservative ceremonies never meet the formal requirements of a valid marriage “in accordance with the laws of Moses and Israel” (Igrot Moshe, Even ha-Ezer part 3, siman 25; part 4, siman 77 and 78). However, Rabbi Hayyim (Howard) Jachter, in an article entitled “Conservative Kiddushin,” has taken the position that, with respect to Conservative marriage ceremonies, such blanket rulings cannot be made and that the validity of each Conservative marriage must be decided on a case-by-case basis (Tehumin 18 [1998]: 84–91).

In an Israel rabbinic court ruling of 2003, Rabbi Shlomo Dichovsky was asked to determine the status of Reform marriages. He held that an Israeli couple who married both in Cyprus in a civil ceremony and in Israel in a Reform ceremony were not married “in accordance with the laws of Moses and Israel” but were married in accordance with Jewish law. Dichovsky deemed the Cypriotic-Reform marriage to be a “Noahite” marriage. A “Noahite” marriage is not null and void ab initio. It is a marriage that Jewish law recognizes and whose termination must be declared by a court of law. Dichovsky held that the Israel rabbinic courts could terminate the Noahite marriage following the determination that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. But since the “Noahite” marriage was not “in accordance with the laws of Moses and Israel,” there was no need for the husband to give his wife a get, or for the wife to accept the get in order for the marriage to terminate. Thus, by applying the “formalities” of Orthodox marriage ceremonies in such a manner as to invalidate Reform ceremonies, Rabbi Dichovsky’s ruling presents an interesting solution for those Israeli couples who choose to marry in non-Orthodox ceremonies and who want to avoid the pitfalls of Jewish divorce law. It also preserves the jurisdiction of the rabbinic courts over such marriages (Ha-din ve-ha-dayyan [The Law and Its Decisor] 5 (February 2004): 5–9).

1
source | link

If an nonOrthodox "get" is obtained, the divorce is invalid and the people (if they were married to begin with) are still married. This would be because the "witnesses" who signed the get are probably not valid and the "bait din" that had the get written probably do not know the technicalities of a get. Given that a valid bait din is used, then the question would be is the heterodox "marriage" valid or did a valid marriage take place even though the "ceremony" itself was not valid.

Since two kosher witnesses are required and the husband must present the ring in front of them, there is the possibility that a non-Orthodox "ceremony" may actually be valid (bediavad - after the fact). That is, there may be two kosher witnesses among the guests who see the "ceremony". As a result, there are those that would say that a get is required in order to avoid problems. This is especially the case when the couple intend to marry, since intercourse with intent for kiddushin is one of the valid methods from the Torah. I have found a citation that says

The “legal formalities” exceptions to the need for a get have also been applied with respect to marriages in which a double-ring ceremony took place, as well as to Jewish marriages that are performed by Reform or Conservative rabbis. Rabbi Moses Feinstein ruled that Reform and Conservative ceremonies never meet the formal requirements of a valid marriage “in accordance with the laws of Moses and Israel” (Igrot Moshe, Even ha-Ezer part 3, siman 25; part 4, siman 77 and 78). However, Rabbi Hayyim (Howard) Jachter, in an article entitled “Conservative Kiddushin,” has taken the position that, with respect to Conservative marriage ceremonies, such blanket rulings cannot be made and that the validity of each Conservative marriage must be decided on a case-by-case basis (Tehumin 18 [1998]: 84–91).

In an Israel rabbinic court ruling of 2003, Rabbi Shlomo Dichovsky was asked to determine the status of Reform marriages. He held that an Israeli couple who married both in Cyprus in a civil ceremony and in Israel in a Reform ceremony were not married “in accordance with the laws of Moses and Israel” but were married in accordance with Jewish law. Dichovsky deemed the Cypriotic-Reform marriage to be a “Noahite” marriage. A “Noahite” marriage is not null and void ab initio. It is a marriage that Jewish law recognizes and whose termination must be declared by a court of law. Dichovsky held that the Israel rabbinic courts could terminate the Noahite marriage following the determination that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. But since the “Noahite” marriage was not “in accordance with the laws of Moses and Israel,” there was no need for the husband to give his wife a get, or for the wife to accept the get in order for the marriage to terminate. Thus, by applying the “formalities” of Orthodox marriage ceremonies in such a manner as to invalidate Reform ceremonies, Rabbi Dichovsky’s ruling presents an interesting solution for those Israeli couples who choose to marry in non-Orthodox ceremonies and who want to avoid the pitfalls of Jewish divorce law. It also preserves the jurisdiction of the rabbinic courts over such marriages (Ha-din ve-ha-dayyan [The Law and Its Decisor] 5 (February 2004): 5–9).