Shalom Aleikhem Ha-Rav ha-Ga'on R. Daniel Eidensohn, shlit"a, Bishvilo Nivra ha-Olam, u-Mimenu Ein Raz Ne'elam,
I think that Kevod Torato ha-Rav will appreciate this letter I sent to the President of the RCA two months ago regarding how to rectify the RCA prenuptial agreement.
Todah rabbah ve-khol tuv,
Shalom Spira
Montreal, Canada
From: Shalom Chaim Spira
Sent: November 24, 2015 16:38
To: rabbibaum@ketertorah.org
Subject: RCA Resolution entitled `ORA; Kayama; and, Illegal Halachic Relationships`
Sent: November 24, 2015 16:38
To: rabbibaum@ketertorah.org
Subject: RCA Resolution entitled `ORA; Kayama; and, Illegal Halachic Relationships`
Be-chasdei Ha-Kadosh Barukh Hu, Yishtabach Shemo
Given these developments, I hope that Kevod Torato ha-Rav will encourage the RCA to reformulate its resolution to call upon every RCA member to abandon the (well-meaning albeit unfortunately disqualified) prenuptial agreement at <theprenup.org> and to instead employ the kosher prenuptial agreement presented by my essay.
Shalom Aleikhem
R. Shalom Baum, shlit"a, Nassi shel Histadrut ha-Rabbanim de-America,
Yehi Noam Ha-Shem Alav, ve-Al Kol ha-Nilvim Elav,
Congratulations to Kevod Torato ha-Rav upon his appointment as President of the RCA.
With the kind permission of
Kevod Torato ha-Rav, I would like to respond to the recent RCA
resolution entitled `ORA; Kayama; and, Illegal Halachic Relationships`,
available here: http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=105834
The resolution calls upon every RCA member to utilize the prenuptial agreement available at
<theprenup.org> for every wedding where he is
mesader kiddushin. However, what the talmidei chakhamim who
voted in favour of this resolution may not have realized is that R.
Moshe Sternbuch recently wrote a responsum disqualifying this very
same prenuptial agreement. The responsum is available
at https://www.scribd.com/doc/273292099/Rav-Moshe-Sternbuch-condemns-prenuptial-agreements?secret_password=tfA9agf8H8M7dDE9Hk4N.
R. Sternbuch`s responsum vindicates Section A of my prenuptial agreement essay at http://www.scribd.com/doc/176990434/Prenuptial-Agreements ,
which reached the same conclusion prior to R. Sternbuch (based, as my essay is, on R. J. David Bleich,
Be-Netivot ha-Halakhah Vol. 1, the latter having been published two decades ago).
Of interest to
Kevod Torato ha-Rav will be that my prenuptial agreement essay (which diamond-polishes R. Jacob Kamenetzky`s proposal how to rescue
agunot; R. Kamenetzky having been presented with the original idea by his disciple R. J. David Bleich) was even more recently
publicized in the
Canadian Jewish News
(Nov. 12, 2015; p. 32)
in honour of
Parashat Toldot, a scan of which is presently enclosed.
Given these developments, I hope that Kevod Torato ha-Rav will encourage the RCA to reformulate its resolution to call upon every RCA member to abandon the (well-meaning albeit unfortunately disqualified) prenuptial agreement at <theprenup.org> and to instead employ the kosher prenuptial agreement presented by my essay.
I thank
Kevod Torato ha-Rav for his kindness in receiving my recommendation.
Todah rabbah ve-khol tuv,
Shalom Spira
Montreal, Canada
But does Rav Shternbuch allow any sort of pre-nup at all?
ReplyDeleteIn other words, would Rav Bleich's formulation be accepted by Rav Shternbuch?
The best prenup is a tnay: Marriage valid on condition that a get is given if asked for consistently over a set period of time.
ReplyDeleteIf get is given indeed - ok
If get is not given, marriage is null and void.
Rav Elyashiv ruled the prenup is assur:
ReplyDeletehttp://daattorah.blogspot.com/2015/03/rav-eliashiv-rejected-prenup-because-of.html?m=1
Brilliant. Tell me one rov worth anything who approves of this wonderful ge'oinus.
ReplyDeleteUmmmmmm. Who is this dude?
ReplyDeletePlease see:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hebrewbooks.org/595
You are about a hundred years too late....Back then, they wanted to do just that in France (they actually made a few various attempts), and rabbonim from all over the world (including America) signed a declaration: you do that, we cut you off from all of us...
ReplyDeleteThe 3 things always apply together שאר כסות ועונה as a package deal .
ReplyDeleteWhere is the source the wife may refuse one of them and collect the other two ?
Harei ze masne al ma shekosuv baTorah.
ReplyDeleteNo halacha respecting, self-respecting Jewish man should consider signing any of the contrived feminist prenups. The only purpose of these prenups is to grant a Jewish wife a special privilege not granted to her by halacha, and not granted by halacha to her husband either - ie the ability to arbitrarily divorce her husband at any time, using the full coercive powers of the non-Jewish courts.
ReplyDeleteThe alleged "mezonos" payments imposed on the husband by the standard MO prenups are a pure halachic farce. The amounts imposed on the husband by the standard MO prenups far exceed halachic "mezonos". Furthermore Shulchan Aruch, Evan HaEzer 70 states that a Jewish husband does not owe mezonos to his wife if she is refusing to live with him. That is exactly the situation the prenup was designed for.
Exactly - so what is the articel above trying to show? There was a proposal by Rav Yaakov ztl, and it is backed by Rav Bleich shlita. In other words, there is a possibility for a prenup, which is backed by Gedolim.
ReplyDeletedoes this mean that if the tnai is not fulfilled he was בועל ביעלות זנות throughout? something is not right with that picture.
ReplyDeleteIf he wants to avoid that, he gives a get! Genius!
ReplyDeleteIf he doesn't care, he doesn't give a get!
But this would end all get extortion as it is practiced today. 50'000 $ for a get here, 100'000 there, 500'000$ for rich people's get. That has to stop. It gives jewish law a bad image.
There is one form of pre-nup that everyone should agree to: the couple agree that should there be any dispute arising from the marriage or related to the marriage (including marital property), they will agree to binding arbitration before a specified Beis Din for all such disputes, they will obey the psak of any such beis din, and they agree that the secular court would have the power to enforce any decree or decision by the beis din.
ReplyDeleteR. Eidensohn -- are you aware of any objections to such a pre-nup?
no
ReplyDeleteYou can add the prenup fiasco to the long list of damaging behavior of the kamenetzkies.
ReplyDeleteWhat set out to be as trying to help a woman find peace has turned vindictive and into win at all cost , scorched earth policy. Hence severe long-term damage
1) they've dragged down the respect for the rabbinate ,and for orthodoxy in general. No longer can orthodoxy or the rabbinate claim the moral high ground.
2)they've destroyed any respect for halacha in general and beis din, specifically on two points first of all that it's futile and second of all that it's corrupt.
3) they have opened the door to tenai in kiddushin ,prenups and hafkaos kiddushin, which until now has not been popular not only because it's weak halachic basis , but also because mediation has been a reasonable alternative . Now not only from the women side but from man's side this fiasco can be held up as proof that mediation/BD process does not work well and without a prenup or similar alternative you're exposing yourself to endless grief.
Thanks rabbi K
I guess it's all worth it for the sake of arrogance
It should include that the agreed upon beis din will decide custody/visitation (based on halacha) and the couple will then take the beis din decision to the secular court and present it to the court as their mutually agreed upon agreement for custody/visitation.
ReplyDeletei don't frankly care about Jewish Law's image. That's G-d's problem, not mine. I care more about adhering to Jewish law. The marketing I leave to G-d.
ReplyDeleteIf it's consistent with Jewish law, do it. If it's not, Stay away, regardless of how Jewish law looks.
She must pay all the monies spent on her retroactively, since he was not mevhuyav *shlosh ele*. In addition, those that hold of prenuptials, she the prospectus MUST inform of her intent of divorce on demand, else it is misleading and outright fraud. Having someone officiating and pulling out a predrafted Ketubah from under his sleeve by the CHUPAH without prior knowledge to the Chossen, is a holdup and holding him like a hostage with a gun over his head, once he has all the invited guests standing by, having prepared an expensive affair along with all other expenses entailed. In all fairness, the prospectus chossen must have ample time free of any undue pressure to think over well before closing of a Shidduch whether such a proposition is agreeable to him. Less than that, is outright fraud.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, a Marriage is a comittment hopefully for life for each partner, as a commandment from Pru Urvu bringing children into this world. These children need Both parents under one roof for their chinuch, welfare, health and well being in order to succeed. It is called for a *Kesher shel Kayomo*, a viable strong bond to have and to hold beahava, vesholom veachvo voreius, and not to outsmart to install loose ends from the getgo to make a quick exit just because she can do better, defeating anything and everything that the Torah wants us to do. If hashem thought you deserve better, he would have bashered for you something better. It makes as much sense as to put a horse in the barn with open doors ONLY, sheyehe munach al gabei keren haTzvi. Those that want to be freed at moments notice, no need to apply. Teishev bebeis oviho ad shetalbin sa'aroh. You claim Agunah, and the children cry YESOIMIM HOYINU VEEIN AV. Those facilitating these tragedies are Machrivayich Umeharsayich of a beis H', and Bayis ne'emon beYisroel. They well deserve to be in CEHREM, SHAMTA, VEARRUR. It is sure to come soon, just around the corner. SHARY'A VEAMEN
Really? Remember, extortion goes both ways. ..what to do if she extorts for him to get get?
ReplyDeleteI've been grappling with this for a while. ....I actually thought that if I had that, then I wouldn't have had to be busy bringing my case back to Bais Din, until I realized that most botei din are feministic. .....
ReplyDeleteAnother note: I have noticed that the seemingly better known agreement said that in case of dispute, both parties agree to bring the case to Beth Din of America - chutzpah to the high heavens! The first agreement I have seen left it blank for the parties to fill in upon agreement, this one said BDA with the rest of the tiny lettering.....such as that a get will automatically be given as opposed to the first form which gave that discretion to the mutually chosen Bais Din, together with every other outstanding issue. ...
How are you proposing to interpret said Rambam in this context?
ReplyDeleteAnd if she cares that she should not become a Zona retroactively?
ReplyDeleteIf the divorcing husband and wife come to Family Court and both mutually present the Beis Din decision on custody/visitation as their mutually agreed and acceptable plan for custody/visitation, then there's little reason to think the court will not accept what both parties to the case agreed to and presented to the Family Court.
ReplyDeleteIf one of the divorcing spouses does not cooperate with the Beis Din and declines to present to the Family Court the Beis Din decision on custody as agreed to by both, then the Beis Din will consider the divorce case unresolved until that spouse cooperates with the Beis Din decision on custody. And the Beis Din will permit the wronged spouse to elect to not complete the Get until the other spouse complies with Beis Din's custody decision.
I've never seen a copy of the RCA prenup that didn't automatically pre-fill the prenup with the BDA being the beit din agreed upon.
ReplyDeletewww.theprenup.org
Nice one. But RYG Bechhofer is bigger than any of the rabbonim who signed against this. He learns Yerushalmi.
ReplyDeleteno mamzerut problem, therefore not relevant.
ReplyDeleteThe Rambam discusses a wife refusing only one of them.
ReplyDeleteDidn't Rav Zalman Nechemiah Goldberg hold it is acceptable?
ReplyDeletePI, what doing you suggest one do when in need of a beis din for a gittin case, considering your characterizing a majority of them add being feministic?
ReplyDeleteThe term "zona" applies to every divorced woman, as far as her right to marry a kohen is concerned. So where is the problem?
ReplyDeleteIf he has no scruples declaring his relationship out-of-wedlock retroactively, why should she have a problem with it.
I, though, have seen a prenup with lots of blank spaces, .open to filling inany items of choice, including the choosing of a particular Bais Din. ..
ReplyDeleteThe only recourse I have arrived at every time I thought of it ,is to do ample and exhaustive research to find out which Bais Din is *truly* reputable. ...
ReplyDeleteDear Rabbi Spira
ReplyDeleteI researched your referenced essay, and I gotta tell you, it ain't an easy read, over 100 pages plus footnotes. (Okay I admit it; I skipped most of the footnotes.) I rather enjoyed it, but there is no accounting for taste. It did bring up a number points which were new to me, and the argumentation was impressive,really well thought out. I would really love to be your Chavrusah.
I've read the comments to this post with some consternation. It seems that most did not take the time to explore your work, which on the face of it you put a great deal effort into. The comments made here reflect the thinking of those who are not familiar with your thesis. What a shame! On the other hand, one could hardly expect the populace who have been accustomed to listening to sound bites to be willing to invest an hour or two to actually read what you so skillfully wrote. Please allow me to express in one paragraph what I have gleaned from your essay.
Building on Rabbi Bleich's foundation you suggest a 2 part solution: Part A, a document signed by both parties to a marriage repudiating all rights under the Get laws of New York State and Canada. This should be done by every married person living in those places, in order to rectify the damage done by the do-gooders who pushed for those laws in the first place and which potentially might render ALL Gittin written there invalid. (What a fine mess you've got me into, Ollie.) Okay, it makes sense, depending on whether the Rabbis deem it necessary.
Here's comes your innovation, Part B: All marriages would be required to be prefaced immediately preceding the ceremony, with a a written agreement by the soon-to-be spouses that the husband to be obligates himself unconditionally to provide a surplus of "Mezonos" in the daily amount of $1,000, for every day of their marriage. If the husband is unable to fulfill this onerous obligation upon demand, than the unpaid balance shall be considered as due and payable when funds are available. In the event of a tragic parting of their ways, the woman would have amassed a veritable fortune in cash or IOU's from her husband to provide a financial incentive, again I repeat incentive, rather than burden, to issue the Get whereupon the wife will tender the funds so amassed and forbear collection on allln amounts due her.
The better question, which I propose has no good answer, is why does society need any prenup agreement imposed on newlyweds.
ReplyDeleteJust 2 comments before, you were talking about extortion from the man's par which seemed relevant, now only mamzerus is relevant?
ReplyDeleteA divorced woman is a "gerusha", not a zonah, the specifically prohibits a kohen to marry a gerusha- it has nothing to do with a kohen's prohibition to marry a zonah.
ReplyDeleteI was with you until the part where R Broyde is a צדיק גמור
ReplyDeleteThank you and ye'yasher kochakha, R' Michelob, for studying my words carefully and noticing that concept which I introduced at the end, based on Rashi to Numbers 27:5 that the children of Tzelofchad had a great merit in causing an expansion of Torah study.
ReplyDeleteEssentially, the issue is how to wage milchamtah shel Torah with respect, as R. Moshe Feinstein describes in Iggerot Mosheh, Yoreh De'ah 3:88. Regarding R. Broyde, I personally feel that this is especially relevant, since I benefited from extensive correspondence with him (and, on one occasion, meeting him in person at a "Torah in Motion" 2009 conference in Mt. Tremblant, Quebec) for purposes of the composition of my essay. It is clear that my essay rejects R. Broyde's defense of the New York Get Law, but still I have hakarat ha-tov to him, analogous to Rabbi Yochanan thanking Resh Lakish in Bava Metzi'a 84a for helping expand the horizons of his understanding through his scholarly opposition. On the other hand, you may well counter that this is analogous to the heart transplants (or at least the early heart transplants) described by Iggerot Mosheh, Yoreh De'ah 2:174, where R. Feinstein begins by emphasizing that we *cannot* merely argue with respect, but rather must be strong in our condemnation. Le-ma'aseh, as I understand it, R. Broyde has resigned from the Beth Din of America, so he no longer is mesader gittin in cases affected by the New York Get Law, and that is a positive step which R. Bleich applauds.
I will tell you something. After I read R. Broyde's essay in Ḥakirah Vol. 18, I sent a rejoinder to Ḥakirah which included the above information (viz. that I believe he innocently misunderstood Iggerot Mosheh, Yoreh De'ah I, no. 101) and other challenges, including: (a) his claim that we are doing the PVS husband a favor by granting a get on his behalf - because otherwise no one will medically treat the patient - is incompatible with R. Eliezer Yehudah Waldenberg,Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer 18:19, and (b) his claim that withholding food and water from the PVS patient is not considered coercion is questionable, since R. Moshe Feinstein reportedly entertained a doubt that withholding food and water from such a patient could be regarded as active homicide. The Ḥakirah editorial board kindly studied my rejoinder, but ultimately declined to publish it. So it seems that Ḥakirah feels that R. Broyde is a צדיק גמור who should not be challenged. I say: okay, he is a צדיק גמור, but his Ḥakirah Vol. 18 article *should* be challenged, albeit with respect, as per Iggerot Mosheh, Yoreh De'ah 3:88.
See also the Gemara, Sotah 31a, that there are different levels of tzaddikim gemurim. So, by my writing that R. Broyde is a tzaddik gammur, this is not a concession to him.
Thank you, again, R' Michelob, for your insightful comments. Just to clarify what I meant by that last paragraph, quoting Sotah 31a that there are different levels of tzaddikim gemurim, it is that while R. Broyde is a צדיק גמור, you are a superior צדיק גמור for your contribution to this discussion. So, everyone emerges as a winner.
ReplyDeleteI am indeed of the opinion that it is valuable to publicize that the 1993 Beth Din of America prenuptial agreement should not be used, because it is "lifnei iver lo titen mikhshol" to arrange a situation where disqualified gittin will result. [Although I will now quote an authority who is cited as supporting the 1993 Beth Din of America prenuptial agreement (viz. R. Ovadiah Yosef), as I explain in footnote 25 of my essay, his support appears to be elusive in nature.] As R. Ovadiah Yosef writes regarding a separate problem in Teshuvot Yabi'a Omer IX, Orach Chaim 59, sec. 1, final sentence: "Therefore one should expound in public that one should avoid using sukkah walls from sheets and plastic." So, I would claim that kal va-chomer one should expound in public that one should avoid using the 1993 Beth Din of America prenuptial agreement. It is a kal va-chomer because the sanctity of marriage is greater than the sanctity of the sukkah.
This article is brimming with information about child support in canada and more like this. I have additionally discovered an article anybody can check Paying Child Support in Canada While Unemployed , for more data, it was knowingly more instructive. You may discover more insights regarding it here.
ReplyDelete